LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT WITHIN A LEARNER

REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL (LRC) IN A RURAL

SECONDARY SCHOOL IN THE OSHANA REGION, NAMIBIA

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF EDUCATION
(Educational Leadership and Management)

of

RHODES UNIVERSITY

by

Rolens Da Silva

February 2018
 Abstract

The Namibian Education Act (Namibia. Education Act No. 16 of 2001) mandates state secondary
school learners to be included in school leadership through a body of learners known as the Learner
Representative Council (LRC). The few studies carried out on the LRC in schools reveal that very
little has been achieved in terms of learner leadership development. This study explored and
provided insight into possible reasons for this, and recommendations. The research questions
driving the study were: How is learner leadership currently understood and practised in the
school? What are the enabling and constraining factors in the school as far as learner leadership
development is concerned? And what can be done to promote learner leadership development?

This study is an interpretive case study of learner leadership in the LRC in a Namibian state
secondary school in the Oshana region. The conceptual framework used was distributed
leadership. The Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) was used as an analytical tool. The
research participants were the LRC members, school principal, Heads of Departments representing
the school management members, the School Board Chairperson representing parents and the LRC
liaison teacher and were all purposively selected. Data was collected through document analysis,
open-ended questionnaires, interviews and non-participant observation. Data analysis took the
form of inductively – identifying themes emerged from the data and deductively – using CHAT to
surface the systemic contradictions within the learners’ activity system.

The data revealed that learner leadership was mostly understood from a management perspective
and equated with the formal authority of the LRC in the school. The data further revealed that the
LRC performed more leadership roles stretched from inside the classroom, outside the classroom,
on the School Board and outside the school. To capture this complexity, I developed a model which
may prove useful for future studies of learner leadership. The data also indicated that much support
was offered to the LRC members in the school; for example, support from the LRC liaison teacher,
the School Management Team and generally from the school, through LRC leadership training.
Using CHAT, the findings revealed that the historical context and cultural conventions contradicted
the LRC leadership development in the school. In line with a distributed leadership theory, the
study recommends that learner leadership should not be limited by position and authority but

ii
should be exercised by all learners, through the development and establishment of learner leader
clubs in the school. The study also recommends that schools should embark on change initiatives
which challenge their traditionally held beliefs and attitudes.

iii
 Declaration
I, Rolens Da Silva, hereby declare that the work in this thesis is my own idea and where ideas from
other writers were used, they were acknowledged in full using references according to the Rhodes
University Education Guide to References. I further declare that the work in this thesis has not
been submitted at any university for degree purposes.

----------------------------- -------------------------
Signature Date

iv
 Acknowledgements

Foremost, I thank God for his divine power and protection during my study. My sincere
appreciation goes to my supervisor Prof. Hennie van der Mescht for his patience, tireless guidance
and supervision during this thesis. I also extend my appreciation to my two core supervisors
Associate Professor Callie Grant and Ms Farhana Kajee for their guidance and constructive
suggestions. I would like to express my appreciation to Dr Caroline van der Mescht for her quality
academic writing presentations.

My profound gratitude is extended to Sackers Ekandjo and Maria Kapia, the Executives of Heroes
Private School for allowing me to do this course full-time and for their financial sacrifices in my
absence.

I am also indebted to the case study school for allowing me to conduct this research. Without your
support and participation, this thesis would have not been realised.

Finally, my special words of thanks go to the following people for their words of encouragement.
Dr. Marinda Neethling, Gottlieb Shikongo, Vuyo Ntamo, Paulina Gabriel, Josephina Heita,
Shafashike Ester, Amakali Amurma, Lydia Hamutumwa, Teopolina Negonga, Karolina Mbango
and Florian.

I am grateful.
May God bless you all!!

v
 Dedication

I would like to dedicate this thesis to my biological mother Salome Nelao Hangula for shaping me
to be who I am today and for always encouraging me to work hard. Mother, you are my inspiration.
Long may you live and may God keep you.

vi
 List of Acronyms

CHAT - Cultural Historical Activity Theory

DLP - Distributed Leadership Project
HoD - Head of Department
LRC - Learner Representative Council

MBESC - Ministry of Basic Education, Sport and Culture

MoEAC - Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture

SB - School Board

SGB - School Governing Body

SMT - School Management Team

UK - United Kingdom
UNICEF - United Nations Interntional Children’s Emergency Fund

UNCRO - United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

vii
 Table of Contents
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Background and rationale...................................................................................................... 1
1.3 The history of learner leadership in Namibian state secondary schools ............................... 3
1.4 Research goal and research questions ................................................................................... 4
1.5 Research design and methodology ........................................................................................ 4
1.6 Research site and duration of study....................................................................................... 5
1.7 Research participants and sampling ...................................................................................... 5
1.8 Thesis outline ........................................................................................................................ 6

CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................................ 8

LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................ 8

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Leadership and management ................................................................................................. 9

2.2.1 Origins of leadership and management .......................................................................... 9

2.2.2 The terrain of leadership ................................................................................................. 9
2.2.3 Defining management................................................................................................... 10
2.2.4 Forces shaping arguments and contradictions between leadership and management ...11
2.2.5 Distinction between leadership and management .........................................................11

2.3 Management and leadership evolution ................................................................................ 12

2.3.1 A brief background of educational leadership and management .................................. 12

2.3.2 Traditional approaches to leadership ............................................................................ 13

2.4 Notion of distributed leadership .......................................................................................... 16

2.4.1 Definition of distributed leadership .............................................................................. 16

2.4.2 The emergence of distributed leadership in schools – why now? ................................ 18
2.4.3 Who is involved in the distribution of leadership in schools? ...................................... 20
2.4.4 Factors inhibiting the distribution of leadership in schools .......................................... 22
2.4.5 Critics of distributed leadership .................................................................................... 23

2.5 Learner leadership ............................................................................................................... 25

2.5.1 Definition of learner leadership .................................................................................... 25

2.5.2 Traditional notion of learner leadership........................................................................ 25
2.5.3 The contemporary idea to involve learners in school leadership ................................. 26

viii
 2.5.4 The benefits of involving learners in school leadership ............................................... 27
2.5.5 Different ways of involving learners in school leadership ........................................... 29
2.5.6 Factors which constrain the LRC participation in school decision-making ................. 30

2.6 Theoretical and analytical framework ................................................................................. 33

2.6.1 Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) ................................................................ 33

2.6.2 A brief historical overview of CHAT ............................................................................ 33
2.6.3 The first generation theory............................................................................................ 34
2.6.4 The perspectives of the second generation activity theory ........................................... 35
2.6.5 The relevancy of CHAT to this study ........................................................................... 37
2.6.6 Few critiques of CHAT ................................................................................................. 38

2.7 Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 39

CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................................... 40

METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 40

3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 40

3.2 Research goal and research questions ................................................................................. 40
3.3 Research orientation ............................................................................................................ 41

3.3.1 Selection of the research site and duration of study ..................................................... 41

3.3.2 Description of the case study school ............................................................................ 42

3.4 Participant sampling procedures ......................................................................................... 43

3.5 Data gathering tools ............................................................................................................ 44

3.5.1 Document analysis ........................................................................................................ 44

3.5.2 Open-ended questionnaires........................................................................................... 45
3.5.3 Interviews ..................................................................................................................... 46
3.5.4 Observation ................................................................................................................... 47

3.6 Data analysis ....................................................................................................................... 48

3.6.1 Content analysis ............................................................................................................ 48

3.6.2 Cultural Historical Activity Theory - CHAT ................................................................ 49

3.7 Validity and trustworthiness ................................................................................................ 49

3.7.1 Pilot study ..................................................................................................................... 50

3.7.2 Triangulation ................................................................................................................. 50
3.7.3 Member-checking ......................................................................................................... 50
3.7.4 Reflexivity .................................................................................................................... 51

ix
 3.8 My positionality in the research .......................................................................................... 51
3.9 Research ethics .................................................................................................................... 52

3.9.1 Gaining access and permission to the case study school .............................................. 52
3.9.2 Informed consent .......................................................................................................... 53
3.9.3 Confidentiality and anonymity ..................................................................................... 53
3.9.4 Harm and deception ...................................................................................................... 54

3.10 Conclusion......................................................................................................................... 54

CHAPTER FOUR ......................................................................................................................... 55

DATA PRESENTATION .............................................................................................................. 55

4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 55

4.2 Coding and profiles of research participants ....................................................................... 55

4.2.1 The LRC members: (LRC1-LRC23) ............................................................................ 55

4.2.2 The former LRC liaison teacher (LRCT1) ................................................................... 56
4.2.3 The school principal (P1).............................................................................................. 56
4.2.4 The School Board Chairperson (SBC1) ....................................................................... 56
4.2.5 Members of the School Management Team – HoDs (HoD1-HoD3) ........................... 56
4.2.6 Data presentation .......................................................................................................... 57

4.3 A conceptual understanding of learner leadership............................................................... 57

4.3.1 Leading and guiding other learners .............................................................................. 58

4.3.2 Learner engagement and voice ..................................................................................... 58
4.3.3 The power to control other learners. ............................................................................. 59
4.3.4 Capacity-building and empowerment ........................................................................... 60

4.4 The roles of the LRC members in the school ...................................................................... 60

4.4.1 The roles of the LRC members outside the classroom ................................................. 60
4.4.2 On the School Board..................................................................................................... 69
4.4.3 Outside the school premises ......................................................................................... 71

4.5 Enabling conditions for LRC leadership development ....................................................... 72

4.5.1 Leadership training for the LRC members ................................................................... 72

4.5.2 Support from the School Management Team ............................................................... 74
4.5.3 Support from the LRC liaison teacher .......................................................................... 75
4.5.4 Networking with other secondary schools.................................................................... 77

4.6 The constraints of LRC leadership development ................................................................ 77

x
 4.6.1 Lack of respect among the learners .............................................................................. 78
4.6.2 Lack of respect and collaboration by teachers.............................................................. 80
4.6.3 Differences and tension among LRC members ............................................................ 81
4.6.4 Overload of tasks on LRC members............................................................................. 82
4.6.5 Lack of facilities for LRC members ............................................................................. 82

4.7 Possible suggestions on how to strengthen the promotion of LRC leadership development
in the school .............................................................................................................................. 83

4.7.1 Collaboration and respect from teachers ...................................................................... 83

4.7.2 Educate the learners on the importance of LRC members ........................................... 83
4.7.3 Leadership and communication skills training ............................................................. 84
4.7.4 Code of conduct for LRC members .............................................................................. 84

4.8 Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 84

CHAPTER FIVE .......................................................................................................................... 85

DATA DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................... 85

5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 85

5.2 A conceptual understanding of learner leadership in the school ......................................... 86

5.2.1 Learner leadership as formal leadership positions ....................................................... 86

5.2.2 Learner leadership: the voice of learners in the school ................................................ 88
5.2.3 Conflating leadership and management ....................................................................... 89
5.2.4 Building leadership capacity ........................................................................................ 90

5.3 The practice and implementation of LRC leadership in the school .................................... 92

5.3.1 Zone one: The LRC leadership practice inside the classroom ..................................... 92
5.3.2 Zone two: Outside the classroom ................................................................................. 95
5.3.3 Zone three: In the School Management Team and the School Board ........................ 100
5.3.4 Zone four: Beyond the school boundaries .................................................................. 102

5.4 The enabling conditions for the LRC leadership in the school ......................................... 103

5.4.1 Leadership training for the LRC members ................................................................. 103

5.4.2 Support from the School Management Team ............................................................. 104
5.4.3 Support from the LRC liaison teacher ........................................................................ 104
5.4.4 Support from networking with LRC members of other schools ................................ 105

5.5 The surfaced systemic contradictions ............................................................................... 105

5.5.1 Contradictions between the subject and community ................................................. 106

5.5.2 Contradictions between the subject and the community ............................................ 108

xi
 5.5.3 Contradictions between the object and the community ...............................................110
5.5.4 Contradiction between the subject and the community ............................................... 111
5.5.5 Lack of teamwork in the LRC ..................................................................................... 111

5.6 Suggestions from research participants ..............................................................................112

5.7 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................113

CHAPTER SIX ............................................................................................................................115

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................115

6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................115

6.2 Overview of the study ........................................................................................................115
6.3 Summary of research findings............................................................................................116

6.3.1 Findings related to research question one....................................................................116

6.3.2 Findings related to question two ..................................................................................116
6.3.3 Findings related to research question three .................................................................119
6.3.4 Findings related to research question four .................................................................. 120

6.4 Possible underlying historical/cultural reasons for the status quo .................................... 120
6.5 Recommendation for practice ........................................................................................... 121
6.6 Limitations of the study..................................................................................................... 122
6.7 Recommendations for future research............................................................................... 123
6.8 Conclusion......................................................................................................................... 123

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 125

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 137

Appendix A: Letter from my supervisor ................................................................................. 137

Appendix B: Seeking permission from the Regional Director ............................................... 139
Appendix C: Seeking permission from the school gate keeper .............................................. 140
Appendix D: Permission letter from the Regional Director .................................................... 141
Appendix E: Permission letter from the school principal ....................................................... 142
Appendix F: Letter of consent ................................................................................................. 143
Appendix G: Consent form ..................................................................................................... 144
Appendix H: Questionnaires administered to LRC members ................................................. 145
Appendix I: Interview schedule .............................................................................................. 148

xii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Spillane’s model of leadership practice from a distributed perspective .................... 18
Figure 2.2 Pyramid of student voice (Mitra & Gross, 2009, p. 523) ............................................ 28
Figure 2.3: Vygotsky’s model of mediated action and (b) its common reformation (adapted from
Engeström, 1987) .......................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 2.4: Second generation CHAT (Engeström, 1987) ............................................................ 36
Figure 2.5: Various elements depicting a second generation activity system applicable to LRC
leadership development (adapted from Engeström, 1987) ........................................................... 38
Figure 4.1: The LRC coordinating the morning devotion ............................................................ 62
Figure 4.2: The LRC members carrying pots at the dining hall ................................................... 65
Figure 4.3: Two LRC School Board members attending the school parents’ meeting ................. 71
Figure 4.4: The LRC members in their t-shirts that they got with the assistance of their LRC liaison
teacher ........................................................................................................................................... 76
Figure 5.1: A new learner leadership model (adapted from Grant’s teacher leadership model, 2006)
....................................................................................................................................................... 92
Figure 5.2: Activity system: Relationship within the elements (Adapted from Engeström, 1987)
..................................................................................................................................................... 106
Figure 6.1: A learner leadership model (adapted from Grant’s teacher leadership model, 2006).
......................................................................................................................................................119

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: The functions of management and leadership (Northouse, 2007, p. 10) ..................... 12

xiii
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction
In this chapter, I introduce the reader to the study and outline the thesis chapters. I present the
background and rationale of my study. I also give a brief historical background of learner
leadership in Namibian state secondary schools. This is followed by the research goals and
questions. I also present a brief account of the methodology in this chapter.

1.2 Background and rationale

This study is about learner leadership development and focuses mainly on the Learner
Representative Council in the school. The study intended to gain a deeper understanding of how
LRC leadership was developed in the school, but my main interest was particularly to find out the
challenges that confront learners in their participation in school leadership. My interest in
conducted this study was motivated mainly by my personal interest and professional interest, as
well as by the inadequate amount of studies on learner leadership in Namibia. Firstly, in my first
year of teaching I was entrusted with the responsibility of being the LRC liaison teacher at the
school. As a novice teacher, I had limited knowledge and understanding of learner leadership. Put
more simply, I found it difficult to accord the necessary support to the LRC members. Secondly,
when I moved on to my current school five years back, I was selected to be part of the School
Management Team, representing teachers. My experience in the involvement of the School
Management Team pointed out to me that justice was not done to the learners; particularly the
LRC head-girl and head-boy who were members of the SMT. In fact, I noticed that these learners
were not really given a chance to raise their voice during meetings and were deprived from
attending certain meetings. Moreover, the LRC’s decisions were sanctioned by the SMT. This
implies that learners were overlooked as valuable resources in school leadership, as their
participation was merely tokenistic and a form of window-dressing. Thirdly, the moment I
registered for my MEd at Rhodes University, my supervisors exposed me to various articles on the

1
field of school leadership where I found out that in South Africa, several studies (Nongubo, 2004;
Mncube, 2008; Carr, & Williams, 2009; Mabovula, 2009; Phaswana, 2010; Mncube, & Harber,
2013; Bessong, Mashau, & Mulaudzi, 2016; Knott-Craig, 2017; Strydom, 2017) reveal an absence
of meaningful participation of learners in school leadership. Two recent Namibian studies
(Shekupakela-Nelulu, 2008; Uushona, 2012) similarly found that that learners’ participation in
school leadership was generally ineffective and recommended more research in this area. Some
findings (Fielding, 2001; Gunter, & Thomson, 2007; Mitra, & Gross, 2009; Grant, 2015; Grant &
Nekondo, 2016) indicate that learners rarely feature in school leadership agendas and their voices
are often ignored. Decisions affecting them are taken without their inputs, as teachers often speak
on their behalf and often misunderstand their perspective (Fielding, 2001; Grant & Nekondo,
2016). This resonates with my personal and professional experience and triggered my interest to
focus my own research on what is clearly a problematic phenomenon in schooling, in the hopes of
adding to our growing understanding of the difficulties and possible solutions. With a clear
understanding about the importance of learner leadership in schools, I believe that learner
leadership can only flourish when the challenges and obstacles impeding learner leadership are
fully understood in terms of historical foundation and formation, and that is what this study does.
I hope that the findings of this study will be useful for policy makers and authorities, including the
Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture, as they will get to know and understand how historical
and cultural contexts, that impact school communities, hinder the development of learner
leadership. This will help them to formulate good plans of action, and strategies on how to deal
with and address these cultural and historical issues, in order to improve and strengthen learner
leadership in schools. Furthermore, it is my hope that the school principals, School Board
members, and School Management Team will find the findings of this study useful, and will start
to recognise and embrace learner leadership by creating opportunities for learners to speak and
have their voices heard. Importantly, the potential value of this study lies in strengthening teachers’
understanding of distributing power and sharing leadership with learners. This would in turn help
learners accept that they are also leaders and have the ability to lead. By so doing, this may extend
democracy and social justice in schools. Finally, based on the outcomes of this study, suggestions
for future research can be made on this topic.

2
In the next section, I give a brief historical background of learner leadership in Namibian secondary
schools, so that the reader may get a clear picture of the existence of learner leadership in secondary
schools.

1.3 The history of learner leadership in Namibian state secondary schools

Democracy and social justice have historically been denied to many people in Namibia. During
the colonial period, the Namibian education system followed the South African Apartheid system
of governance, which was characterised by non-participation and hierarchical, bureaucratic
management approaches (Pomuti & Weber, 2012, p. 2). After independence in 1990, the new
constitution established a sovereign, secular, democratic, and unitary state founded upon the
principles of democracy, the rule of law, and social justice for all (Namibia. The Constitution of
The Republic of Namibia, 1990, p. 2.) In 1992, the Ministry of Basic Education and Culture
(MBEC) promulgated Towards Education for All, an education policy document promoting
democratic education and active participation in decision-making (Namibia. MBEC, p. 30). In
1997, the government of the Republic of Namibia formulated A Decentralisation Policy from the
Ministry of Education and Culture (MBEC) regulating that the government alone cannot decide
what should be done in schools; it instructed that power and autonomy should be distributed to the
stakeholders – chiefly teachers, parents, and learners – to enable them to make decisions for their
schools. The Education Act (Namibia. Education Act No. 16 of 2001) stipulates the provision of
accessible, equitable, quality, and democratic national education services. Chapter 60 of this Act
(Namibia. Education Act No. 16 of 2001) mandates that every state secondary school needs to
establish a body of learners to be known as the Learner Representative Council (LRC). In addition,
Chapter 18 of the Act requires the presence of two learners on the School Board (School Governing
Body). It is clear from these policies that learners are to be included in the decision-making and
leadership functions of the school. In this regard, the Namibian policies on education embraced
the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Right of the Child (UNCROC) to participate in
decision-making on matters that affect them. Next, I move on to give the main goal and research
questions of the study.

3
1.4 Research goal and research questions
My study aims to gain insight into how learner leadership is currently understood and practiced in
the school. This study also seeks to unearth the cultural-historical forces enabling or constraining
learner leadership development. And lastly, the study seeks to explore possible solutions to how
learner leadership can be developed and promoted in the school.

The main questions driving the study are:

1. What is the current understanding of learner leadership in the school?

2. How is learner leadership practiced and implemented by the LRC members in the school?

3. What are the conditions that promoted and/or constrained the Learner Representative
Council’s leadership development in the school?

4. What needs to be done to strengthen the promotion of the Learner Representative Council’s
leadership development in the school?

1.5 Research design and methodology

This study is located within the interpretive, qualitative orientation and takes the form of a case
study. I decided to work within an interpretive, qualitative orientation based on its ontological and
epistemological position. Interpretive studies generally focus on “describing a phenomenon in an
in-depth, rich, robust, thick, empathetic, and subjective manner” (Bezuidenhout, 2014, p. 52).
Furthermore, interpretive, qualitative orientation generally attempts to understand phenomenon
within their natural occurring context (Creswell, 2012; Nieuwenhuis, 2012; Schwartz-Shea, &
Yanow, 2012). Interpretive, qualitative orientation was therefore suitable for my research since my
interest, in the first place, was to understand how the research participants viewed and experienced
learner leadership. I was also interested in how they saw the obstacles opposing learner leadership,
and how they see the future.

I regard this as a case study because I examined a phenomenon – one case of a wide spread
occurrence – in considerable detail in its historical and lived context. Stake (2005) refers to a case
study as a process of studying an event or a phenomenon in a bounded system (p. 444). In my
study, the case was confined to the school. This was an intrinsic case study (Stake, 2005, p. 34)
4
since it does not claim to provide a blueprint or example for anyone to follow. Finally, a case study
method was applicable to my study as I studied LRC leadership in a real-life school context where
leadership was practiced, and this helped me to gain in-depth understanding of how LRC
leadership had been developed in the school.

1.6 Research site and duration of study

The site for this study was a state secondary school in the Oshana Region, northern Namibia. I
selected the school for convenience (Pascoe, 2014) because I conducted my MEd pre-course
assignment there and I was already known there as a researcher. The school was also in the same
area where I lived and worked. This means that I easily got access to the school and frequent visits
were affordable. Even though I was already known at the school, I also faced some challenges
which I will discuss later in Chapter Three. I spent two months at the case study school.

1.7 Research participants and sampling

A total number of 29 participants took part in this study. The participants included the 23 LRC
members, the former LRC liaison teacher, the school principal, the School Board Chairperson, and
members of the School Management Team who were the three Heads of Departments (HoDs) in
the school. According to Pascoe (2014), with purposive sampling, we purposefully choose the
elements that we wish to include in our sample, based on a set list of characteristics (p. 142). I
purposely selected all the participants because of their similar characteristics of working closely
with the LRC members in the school (Namibia. Education Act No. 16 of 2001).

In this study, I used document analysis, questionnaires with open-ended questions, semi-structured
interviews, and observation as data gathering techniques. Open-ended questionnaires were
administered to all members of the LRC. Interviews were done with six of the 23 learners on the
RCL, the former LRC liaison teacher, principal, three Heads of Departments, and the Chairperson
of the School Board. Observation was done when the LRC were executing their leadership roles,
both inside and outside the school. I opted for several data gathering techniques to ensure that
triangulation was possible, and this helped to strengthen the validity and trustworthiness of my
findings (Yin, 1994; Stake, 1995). In addition, I tested my interview questions on my supervisor.

5
Questionnaires and intended observation activities were also verified before the main exercise. I
also conducted a pilot study of the questionnaires and interview questions at the school where I
currently teach, and tested how clear and how understandable the questions were; this helped me
to adjust and restructure some questions.

Regarding data analysis, I used content analysis through thematic coding, where I read through all
the data and identified key concepts and phrases which answered my research questions. I arranged
these into different categories from which I generated the themes that I used to present and discuss
the findings in this thesis. These were ultimately viewed through the lens of literature and
particularly, distributed leadership as a conceptual framework for this study. Finally, I used
Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) to surface the systemic contradictions within the
learner leadership activity system. I discuss all these methodological issues in Chapter Three of
this thesis.

In the next section, I move on to give the outline of the thesis.

1.8 Thesis outline

This thesis consists of six chapters which are outlined below.

Chapter One gave an overview of the research. I provided the context and rationale of the study.
The research goal and research questions were set out in this chapter. I also offered a brief summery
on the methodologies of the study.

Chapter Two presents the literature review. Here I concentrated on literature related to leadership
and management. I also review literature on leadership theories from traditional to a distributed
leadership theory, which is currently in vogue and relevant to my study. Local and international
learner leadership are reviewed. I conclude this chapter by presenting CHAT as an analytical tool
for this study.

6
Chapter Three entails the research methodology and methods which I used to conduct the
research. I give a full description of the approach and procedures of gathering data. The research
site and research participants are also discussed in this chapter. Then, I provide the data gathering
techniques which I used during the gathering of data, namely document analysis, questionnaires,
interviews, and observation. The strengths and limitations of each data gathering technique is
discussed. Data analysis methods as well as the issues of validity and trustworthiness are
explained. To comply with the ethical aspects of doing research, I conclude this chapter with the
research ethics consideration.

In Chapter Four I analyse, triangulate, and present the raw data I collected during document
analysis, questionnaires, interviews, and observation, considering the research questions.
Categories and themes are generated in this chapter.

Chapter Five is linked to Chapter Four. Here I discuss the themes as they emerged from the data
analysis, in light of the literature review presented in Chapter Two and new literature. The surfaced
contradictions are discussed using the CHAT framework.

In Chapter Six I conclude the thesis with the summary of the research findings considering the
research goal and questions. I also present the new knowledge generated by the study. I suggest
some recommendations for practice and future research. I also discuss the limitations of the study,
before concluding the thesis.

In the next chapter (Chapter Two), I review literature relevant to my study.

7
 CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction
This chapter consists of a review of literature related to the concept of learner leadership as it is
theorised and practised in present day schools. The aim is to unpack information concerning
learner leadership in schools. However, while I attempt to draw on learner leadership literature,
Whitehead (2009) reveals that “many leadership studies focus primarily on adult interpersonal and
organisational leadership development and pay little attention to developing the right type of
qualities of leadership needed by young people” (p. 48). Similarly, Grant and Nekondo (2016)
indicate that research in this niche area is limited, particularly in African countries such as
Namibia.

This chapter begins by providing an understanding of leadership and management as distinct

phenomena, exploring the relationship between the two. In probing the meanings of these
concepts, “it is useful to distinguish between them while also acknowledging their
interrelationships” (Christie, 2010, p. 695). An understanding of these concepts is critical to any
discussion of learner leadership because learner leadership is one dimension of the practice of
leadership. The chapter moves to trace the origins of educational leadership and management and
from here, it examines the literature on traditional approaches of leadership to a more
contemporary distributed leadership theory, which is receiving much attention and growing
empirical support in schools (Gronn, 2000; Spillane, 2006). The remainder of the chapter focuses
on assessing learner leadership which is the focus of this research. I look at what learner leadership
is and the benefits of involving learners in school leadership as well as the factors which constrain
learner leadership in schools.

I conclude this chapter with Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) as a theoretical
framework and an analytical tool for this research.

8
Schedlitzki and Edwards (2014) state that there is an ongoing debate of whether leadership is
different from management (p. 12). Against this background, in the next section I discuss the
notion of leadership and management.

2.2 Leadership and management

2.2.1 Origins of leadership and management

In their discussion of the origins of leadership and management, Schedlitzki and Edwards (2014,
p. 14) note that:

The words ‘leadership’ and ‘management’ do appear to have a different origin (times
referred to as etymological background). For example, the word ‘management comes from
the Latin word manus and it has a meaning of handling things (objects, machinery and so
on) the word management appears to have grown in stature during the industrial revolution
when it had a link to handling of machinery. The word ‘leadership’ on the other hand,
comes from the Anglo-Saxon word leader, which appears to have a meaning around ‘a
road’ or a ‘path’ suggesting some form of direction given.

Moving from the understanding that leadership and management have different origins, I explore
how various scholars define leadership and management. I first begin with leadership and
subsequently, management follows.

2.2.2 The terrain of leadership

Foster (1989) suggests that before the term leadership can be utilised meaningfully, it is necessary
to analyse the two different traditions which inform social scientific definitions of leadership.
Drawing from Foster’s (1989) suggestion, I find it important to briefly deliberate on the two
different traditions of leadership research, with the essence that this discussion may lay a
foundation for a better understanding of leadership.

Foster identifies traditions of leadership research as:

• The political/historical model which is the study of leadership that includes “analysing the
life story of events and actions, of ideas, and how individuals use power, politics and
historical fact to transform their social context” (1989, p. 40).

9
 • The bureaucratic-managerial model which is “an influential model which describes the
way managers and scholars of management, refer to the concepts of leadership” (Foster,
1989, p. 43). Furthermore, this model contains several assumptions that leadership is a
function of organisational positions; the leader is the person of superior rank in an
organisation. The strong assumption here, is that leadership only occurs because of position
(Foster, 1989).

Next, I discuss definitions of leadership.

2.2.2.1 Defining leadership

There is no universal definition of leadership because leadership is complex, and studied in

different ways that require different definitions (Lussier & Achua, 2001, p. 4). Yet, almost everyone
seems to agree that leadership involves an influence. For example, academics such as Lussier and
Achua (2001), Bush and Middlewood (2005), Bush (2007), Northhouse (2007) and Christie (2010)
define leadership as a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve
a common goal. Besides influence, Whitehead (2009) defines leadership as “a complex moral
relationship between people, based on trust, obligation, commitment, emotion, and a shared vision
of the good” (p. 847).

In contrast to leadership definition, I will now discuss the definition of management.

2.2.3 Defining management

Maintenance is a key word in referring to management. For example, several authors, Bush (2007,
p. 367), Young and Dulewicz (2008, p. 18) and Grant (2009, p. 46) refer to management as the
“maintenance of the status quo of current organisational arrangements in an efficient and effective
manner”. Authors such as Toor and Ofori (2008, p. 63), Lunenburg (2011, p. 2) and van der
Westhuizen (2014, pp. 135-171) indicate that management involves planning, organising, leading
and controlling an organisation’s operations to achieve a co-ordination of human and material
resources essential in the effective and efficient attainment of objectives. Furthermore,
management involves supervision and delegation. For example, van der Westhuizen (2014) posits
that educational leaders can delegate responsibilities and ensure effective execution through
supervision.
10
As I indicated earlier in the introduction, leadership and management are used interchangeably
and often conflated with each other. The next section explores the reasons for the conflation of
leadership and management terms.

2.2.4 Forces shaping arguments and contradictions between leadership and

management
The process of leadership and management “constitute two sides of the same coin and hold each
other in creative tension as they work together for effective functioning of an organisation” (Grant,
2012, p. 52). In addition, Kotter (1990), Bush (2007) and Northouse (2007) contend that the two
concepts of management and leadership intertwine in a sense that both entail working with people
and are concerned with effective goal accomplishment. Therefore, people often find it difficult to
distinguish between leadership and management since the two concepts overlap (Muronga, 2011).
Even if leadership and management overlap, Kotter (1999) emphasises that leadership and
management are complementary systems of action, yet different from each other (p. 51).

Informed by Kotter (1999), I next explore the distinctions between leadership and management.

2.2.5 Distinction between leadership and management

Christie (2010) explains that management is an organisational concept relating to the structures
and processes which organisations use to meet their goals and central purpose (p. 696). In contrast,
leadership is not organisational and does not solely equate to concepts related to position or
managerial effectiveness (Foster, 1989, p. 49). In addition, Grant (2012) points out that leadership
and management differ because leadership “seeks adaptive and constructive change in an
organisation while its complementary term management develops and sustains order, stability,
preservation and organisational maintenance” (p. 52).

Leadership and management differ in terms of their primary functions as illustrated in the table
below.

11
Table 2.1: The functions of management and leadership (Northouse, 2007, p. 10)

MANAGEMENT LEADERSHIP
Produces Order & Consistency Produces Change & Motivation

Planning and Budgeting Establishing Direction

• Establishing agendas • Create a vision

• Set timetables • Clarify big picture
• Allocate resources • Set strategies

Organizing and Staffing Aligning People

• Provide structure • Communicate goals

• Make job placements • Seek commitment
• Establish rules and procedures • Build teams and coalitions

Controlling and Problem Solving Motivating and Inspiring

• Develop incentives • Inspire and energise

• Generate creative solutions • Empower subordinates
• Take corrective action • Satisfy unmet needs

In the next part of this section, I provide an overview of the development of educational leadership
and management and how it emerged over time. I believe that it is difficult to understand
contemporary leadership without familiarity of its origins and development. By understanding the
historical background of educational leadership and management, one gains more comprehensive
knowledge of the forces which inform and influence leadership and management activities in
schools.

2.3 Management and leadership evolution

2.3.1 A brief background of educational leadership and management

Educational leadership and management is a ‘borrowed field’ which began in in the United
Kingdom and United States of America (van der Mescht, 2008, p. 19). The discourse of educational
leadership and management are drawn from business and industry, where leadership is seen
through the lens of a bureaucratic-managerial setting (Bush, 1999, p. 239). Moreover, the

12
bureaucratic-managerial model connects the leadership process to a hierarchical division of labour,
managerial discourse and assumes that leadership and management is located within a single
individual (Foster, 1989, p. 43). Furthermore, a bureaucratic and rational model of management
contains minimum information related to the suitability of business models for schools (Christie,
2010, p. 698).

Christie (2010) argues that management and leadership discourse is drawn and transferred from
business and industry to education, through the assertion that schools should operate more like
businesses. Therefore, principals are framed as managers to whom leading business approaches
such as “total quality management” and “strategic planning” are offered as “solutions to problems
of performance” (p. 698).

Having given the background of educational leadership and management framed with a
bureaucratic-managerial model, I now move on to outline the traditional approaches to leadership
which are historically located, and layered on top of each other (Gunter, 2001, p. 68). Literally, I
seek to inquire how these approaches align with each other, as leadership imperatives seem to
come in waves (Gunter, 2001, p. 69).

2.3.2 Traditional approaches to leadership

In this section, I discuss the traditional approaches to leadership which take for granted a one-
directional flow from the leader to the follower (Watkins, 1986, pp. 10-11).

2.3.2.1 The trait approach

The trait approach had its origins in classical scientific management. Frederick W. Taylor,
considered the true “father” of scientific management believed in true science based on clearly
defined principles and laws (Drake & Roe, 1980, p. 55; van der Westhuizen, 2014, p. 65). The
traditional connotation toward leadership suggested that leaders were born. According to
Northouse (2007) it is believed that some individuals were born with special qualities and
characteristics (intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity and sociability) that made
them great leaders and only certain people possessed these attributes (p. 15). In addition, the trait
approach believed that leadership was of extreme importance and that “there is no substitute for it

13
and it cannot be created or promoted neither can be taught or learned” (Mullins, 2010, p. 377).
Moreover, the trait approach focused exclusively on the leader, not on the follower or the situation
(Northouse, 2007, p. 23).

The trait theory had several weaknesses. The trait approach was devoted only to the leader and
failed to take situations into account. People who possessed certain traits that made them leaders
in one situation, may have not had the same impact in a differing situation (Northouse, 2007).

Next, I discuss the situational approach that emerged from the trait approach. Situational leadership
incorporated the impact of situations and followers on leadership.

2.3.2.2 The situational approach

According to van der Westhuizen (2014), the situational approach had its roots in a human
relations/social science system that ushered in considerations for people and their social
conditions, as an important ingredient in management and organisation. Mary Parker was one of
the first proponents of human relations theories (Drake & Roe, 1980, p. 61). Situational leadership
emphasised the behaviour and actions of a leader towards subordinates in various contexts
(Northouse, 2007, p. 69). In addition, Drake and Roe (1980) point out that situational leadership
included three components: (1) Leader-member relations – the degree to which group members
support, respect and like the group leader; (2) task structure – the degree to which group tasks are
spelled out; and (3) position power – the power vested by the organisation in the leader’s position
or the degree to which the position enables the leader to get the group to accept his or her leadership
(p. 129). Northouse (2007) adds that the situational approach was composed of two general kinds
of behaviours: the task behaviour and relationship behaviour. Task behaviours facilitate goal
accomplishment: they help group members to achieve their objectives. Relationship behaviours
help subordinates feel comfortable with themselves, each other and the situation in which they find
themselves (p. 69). It is important for leaders to adjust their style of leadership in concrete
situations to better fit situational demands. In fact, not to do so, often leads to failure (Drake &
Roe, 1980, p. 129).

14
Having looked at situational approaches which focused on what leaders did rather than who leaders
are, I now explore transformational leadership which depends on a single leader bringing change
and improvement in an organisation such as a school.

2.3.2.3 Transformational leadership

Gunter (2001, p. 69), Northouse (2007, p. 176) and Schedlitzki and Edwards (2014, p. 64) indicate
that transformational leadership was first coined by Downton (1973); however, its emergence as
an important approach to leadership began with a classic work by the political scientist James
MacGregor Burns (1978). In his work, Burns attempted to establish leadership as a relationship
based on an exchange between leaders and followers, known as transactional leadership. In
contrast to transactional leadership, as its name implies, transformational leadership is a process
that changes and transforms people. It is concerned with “emotions, values, ethics, standards, and
long-term goals and includes assessing followers’ motives, satisfying their needs, and treating
them as full human beings” (Northouse, 2007, p. 175). In the same way, Marks and Printy (2003)
posit that transformational leaders motivate followers by raising their consciousness about the
importance of organisational goals and by inspiring them to transcend their own self-interest for
the sake of the organisation (p. 375).

The conception of transformation which has been most influential in education, includes leadership
which is comprised of four dimensions (Gunter, 2001, p. 69; Woods, 2005, p. 20; Northouse, 2007,
p. 67).

• Inspirational influence – motivating subordinates through charisma;

• Individual consideration – treating subordinates according to their individual needs;
• Intellectual stimulation – exercising influence on thinking and imagination of subordinates;
• Idealised influence – bring about subordinates’ identification with the leader’s vision.

In a school context, transformational leadership relies upon the single leadership of the principal
who is viewed as the only leader and agent of change in the school (Hall, Gunter, & Bragg, 2013,
p. 470). Similarly, Marks and Printy (2003) suggest that transformational leadership affirms the
centrality of the principal’s reform role, particularly in introducing innovation and shaping
organisational culture (p.375). Furthermore, Marks and Printy (2003) argue that as a

15
transformational leader, the principal seeks to elicit higher levels of commitment from all school
personnel and to develop organisational capacity for school improvement (p. 377).

While transformational leaders play a pivotal role in precipitating change and improvement in
schools, it seems that in many instances transformational leadership failed to make any significant
improvement in schools. For instance, a study conducted by Hall et al. (2013) in schools in
England, reveals that transformative school leaders “hero heads”, have failed to sustainably
produce anticipated outcomes in schools, raising many questions about the efficacy of single
leadership (p. 470). Likewise, in a study conducted by Koh, Steers and Terborg (1995) in schools
in Singapore, the results also suggest that transformational leadership had little impact, particularly
on student academic performance (p. 320).

Woods (2005) critiques transformational leadership as being too hierarchical and placing too much
reliance on ‘heroic’ top leaders, which can encourage manipulation of followers and dependence
on a dominant echelon of leaders (p. 21). Hall et al. (2013) also critique transformational
leadership, as enabling and supporting existing power structures to be maintained and being a top-
dog theory that meets the needs of management (p. 470).

The faith and hope of transforming schools through actions of individual leaders is now waning
(Hartley, 2007, p. 141). Emerging as the new orthodoxy is a distributed leadership approach which
changes the focus from powerful individuals, to a team of leaders, constituting a leadership system.
Against this background, in the next section, I discuss distributed leadership as the leadership
approach of the moment, particularly in schools. My focus is more on the pragmatic reasons for
the emergence of distributed leadership. First and foremost, I begin by defining the concept of
distributed leadership.

2.4 Notion of distributed leadership

2.4.1 Definition of distributed leadership

Before I define the concept of distributed leadership, I highlight ideas that are very closely related
to the concept of distributed leadership. Drawing upon studies on distributed leadership (Bennett,

16
Wise, Woods, & Harvey, 2003; Harris, Leithwood, Day, Sammons, & Hopkins, 2007; Harris, 2007;
Hartley, 2007; Harris & DeFlaminis, 2016, Grant, 2017), concepts such as empowerment,
democracy, autonomy, delegate, shared and collaborative leadership overlap with the concept of
distributed leadership. Although the concept of distributed leadership could be viewed as
overlapping with notions of shared, collaborative and democratic leadership, there is a distinctive
perspective on leadership practice that it offers (Harris, 2006). It is however not my intention to
make distinctions between the concepts related to distributed leadership, rather I define the concept
of distributed leadership.

Gronn (2000) defines distributed leadership as an “emergent property of a group of people or

network of interacting individuals who pool their initiative and expertise together” (p. 334). This
implies that leadership is a form of concerted action which constitutes the additional dynamic that
occurs when people work together or that is the product of conjoint agency (Bennet et al., 2003,
p. 8). For Harris (2013), distributed leadership concentrates on engaging expertise where ever it
exists within the organisation rather than seeking this through only formal positions or roles.
Spillane, Halverson and Diamond (2004) suggest that distributed leadership is best understood as
“leadership practice distributed over leaders, followers, and situation and incorporates the
activities of multiple groups of individuals in the execution of leadership tasks” (p. 20). Spillane
(2006) refers to distributed leadership as a leadership that is primarily concerned with the “co-
performance and the reciprocal interdependences that shape leadership practice” (p. 56) as
illustrated below in Spillane’s model of leadership practice from a distributed perspective.

17
 Situation / context

Leader Followers

Figure 2.1: Spillane’s model of leadership practice from a distributed perspective

What is significant here is that leadership is a relationship, where the focus is on social interaction,
in which a group of people depend on each other in performing their tasks. In this sense of
distributed leadership, everyone can be a leader in his/her context (Harris, 2004). In a school
context, naturally this flies in the face of traditional notions of school management, where the
principal is the sole authority figure within a community of teachers and learners (James, Mann,
& Creasey, 2007, p. 85); in contrast, distributed leadership suggests that leadership should not
reside solely in the principal’s office; leadership should be stretched over all members of the school
(Spillane, 2006, p. 12). In this sense, distributed leadership is “a form of collective agency which
incorporate the activities of teachers and learners (Harris & DeFlaminis, 2016, p. 144)

2.4.2 The emergence of distributed leadership in schools – why now?

Contemporary literature reveals that distributed leadership is increasingly used in discourse about
school leadership and is currently receiving attention. Thus, distributed leadership is described as
“the new kind on the block” (Gronn, 2000, p. 34), “in vogue” (Harris, 2004, p. 13), “the leadership
idea of the moment” (Harris et al., 2007, p. 338) and “growing in popularity” (Harris & Spillane,
2008, p. 31). If distributed leadership is the idea of the moment, why is this so and what makes it
unique? (Grant, 2017).

18
According to Hartley (2007) the emergence of distributed leadership is firstly the failure of the
charismatic hero to transform schools (p. 206). Evidence suggests that distributed leadership is one
potential contributor to positive change and transformation in school systems (Spillane, 2006;
Harris at al., 2007). Secondly, the greater complexity of the tasks which a principal undertakes
typically leaves insufficient time to complete the necessary heroic activities and cope with these
more mundane responsibilities (Timperley, 2005, p. 395; Hartley, 2007, p. 206). A study conducted
by Spillane, Harris, Jones and Mertz (2015) reveals that principals are overwhelmed with work
and demands of their time from both internal and external stakeholders – parents, learners and
teachers (p. 1076). Hence schools need many leaders at all levels and this can only be realised
thorough distributed leadership (Hartley, 2007, p. 203).

Furthermore, the emergence of distributed leadership brings about empowerment and capacity-
building. According to Timperley (2005) and Kelley and Dikkers (2016), distributed leadership
has the potential to empower and build capacity within a school through the development of the
intellectual and professional capital of teachers. For example, the Annenberg Distributed
Leadership Project [DLP] that was conducted in the United States in 263 urban schools,
highlighted the positive impact of distributed leadership on building the capacity for instructional
improvement (Harris & DeFlaminis, 2016, p. 143). This is in contrast with the heroic leader, where
the primary leadership roles are carried out by the school principal without empowering teachers
and when the principal moves on, leadership progress is not sustained (Timperley, 2005, p. 395).
In addition, Hopkins and Jackson (2003) state that distributed leadership is based on the premise
that all teachers have the potential and responsibility to contribute meaningfully towards leadership
activities, hence contributing to distributed leadership receiving attention in schools (p.100).
Similarly, Harris and Spillane (2008) argue that distributed leadership extends the boundaries of
leadership by placing a greater emphasis upon teachers, support staff and students as leaders
(p. 31). Thus, Harris (2004) argues that distributed leadership has the potential to capitalise and
maximise the skills and abilities of all individuals in the school community (p. 14). For example,
Spillane, Camburn and Pareja (2007) highlight that leadership tasks can be carried out by the
principal and other formal leaders in the school (e.g. assistant principals, guidance counsellors,
departments, or grade-level chairs), as well as individuals with no formal role, thus promoting

19
capacity building. The studies by Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) identified that when leadership
activities are distributed to teachers, it has a positive influence on teacher effectiveness and student
engagement, since teachers develop expertise and skills by working together.

King et al. and Griffin found that distributed leadership results in positive effects on pedagogy,
school culture and educational quality (as cited in Harris, 2004, p. 21). Equally, some empirical
studies (Gronn, 2000; Spillane, 2006; Hartley, 2007; Harris, 2011; Hall et al., 2011) of successful
school leadership, revealed that distributed leadership has a greater influence on schools and
student outcomes. Empirical evidence in a study conducted by Silins and Mulford in Australia on
over 2,500 teachers and principals about distributed leadership and student outcomes, concluded
that students’ outcomes are more likely to improve when leadership sources are distributed
throughout the school community and when teachers are empowered in their decided areas of
importance (as cited in Harris et al., 2007, p. 342).

Furthermore, distributed leadership promotes democratic practices in schools whereby teachers

have more freedom and autonomy and can participate in school decision-making (Hall et al., 2011,
p. 33). A smaller scale study by Harris and Muijs in England (as cited in Harris et al., 2007, p. 342)
found a positive relationship between distributed leadership and the degree of teachers’
involvement in decision-making and student motivation and efficacy. The study further discovered
that teacher and student morale improves when teachers feel more involved in school decision-
making. By the same token, Williams (2011) indicates that using distributed leadership has
epistemological implications for teachers; instead of being passive recipients and implementers of
revealed knowledge as contained in official policies, they can become generators of new
knowledge (p. 194). Writers like Harris et al. (2007, p. 340) and Williams (2011, p. 194), argue
that distributed leadership promotes the development of collegial norms amongst teachers which
contribute to school effectiveness. By allowing teachers to work as a collective it provides them
with a legitimate source of authority.

2.4.3 Who is involved in the distribution of leadership in schools?

According to Harris and DeFlaminis (2016) distributed leadership is not a panacea; it depends on
how it is shared, received and enacted (p. 143). Distributed leadership cannot take place without

20
the principal. “The principal is the gate-keeper to distributed leadership practice in the school and
has a powerful and real relationship between him or herself and the other managers of the school,
who take leadership roles as they emerge” (South Africa. Department of Education [DHET], 2008,
p. 60). Harris (2011) also states that it is the critical role of formal leaders in schools to orchestrate
and nurture the space for distributed leadership to occur. Similarly, Kelley and Dikkers (2016) also
affirm that it is the role of the principal to develop, support and encourage distributed leadership
(p. 393). Otherwise, without the support of the principal, distributed leadership is unlikely to
flourish or be sustained (Harris, 2011, p. 10). However, taking a distributed perspective on
leadership does not mean that the principal should delegate their role (Spillane, 2006, p. 13) but
rather highlights the ways in which leadership is spread across individuals and groups of
individuals throughout the schools (Kelley & Dikkers, 2016, p. 398). Equally, “the work of the
principal is to hold the pieces of the organisation together in a productive relationship” (Harris &
Muijs, 2005, p. 28). Furthermore, a report compiled by Bennett et al., (2003, p. 19) also provides
confirmation that:

Distribution is created by one leader – the headteacher – through a process which

progressively extends the degree to which individuals and groups within a school could
take responsibility for aspects of its work. However, this does not remove the ultimate
control function from the headteacher, whose accountability to the school governors and
remains bounded within the constraints of the overall policy decisions of head and
governors.

According to Harris et al. (2007), distributing leadership does not automatically result in
organisational improvement. Much depends on how leadership is distributed and intended
(p. 345). Harris et al. (2007) highlight two key conditions necessary for successful leadership
distribution. First, leadership needs to be distributed to those who have, or can develop, the
knowledge or expertise required to carry out the leadership tasks expected of them. Secondly,
effective distributed leadership needs to be coordinated, preferably in some planned way (as cited
in Harris et al., 2007, p. 343). Correspondingly, Kelley and Dikkers (2016) point out four things
to consider when leadership is distributed (a) leadership should be distributed based on the distinct
skills, experiences and the interests of the members of the leadership team; (b) the extra-ordinary
initiative of individual members who have an interest in developing aspects that they feel
responsible for or care deeply about; (c) the work of informal leaders to embrace, participate in,
and lead change efforts locally in their peer group, department, grade broadly in the school; and
21
(d) leadership that emerges in the space between individuals working collaboratively together to
advance school goals.

Having given the reasons for the emergence of distributed leadership in schools, I now move to
highlight the factors inhibiting the spread and adaptation within schools.

2.4.4 Factors inhibiting the distribution of leadership in schools

According to Harris (2004) there are inevitable and inherent difficulties associated with the
widespread adoption and adaptation within schools (p. 19). There is misunderstanding and
misinterpretation of distributed leadership, because of a lack of clarity and often it is interpreted
as delegation and used to justify certain leadership approaches over others in schools (James et al.,
2007, p. 86; Harris & DeFlaminis, 2016, p. 143). Another strong limitation is the centralisation of
power and control in schools. According to Grant (2017), “In many mainstream school
communities, SMTs are positioned as ‘the rightful leadership titleholders’ who lay claim to central
decision-making processes essentially because of the symbolic capital acquired through position”
(p. 10). Thus, principals often think it is their legal responsibility to run their schools, therefore
ensuring that they hold on to power and do not distribute leadership to other members of the school.
Hence, if things go wrong or the school does not to reach its target, then it is the principal who
should be blamed (Harris, 2013).

For example, an empirical study by Spillane et al. (2015) revealed that school principals believe
that they are responsible for almost everything that happens in the school and this appears to
constrain distributed leadership and instead encourages a heroic approach to school leadership
(p. 1076). Further on the school principal as a deterring block to distributed leadership in schools,
is the issue of trust. Several research evidences (Grant, 2012; Harris, 2013; Harris, Jones, & Baba,
2013) suggest that school principals do not trust fellow school members with leadership because
those included in leadership use it for detrimental and damaging purposes. However, Harris (2013)
argues that “successful distribution of leadership depends upon the firm establishment of mutual
trust – this is the glue that make all highly effective organisations perform at the highest level”
(p. 552).

22
Apart from the school principal being reluctant to relinquish power to others, literature shows that
teachers often refuse to take up leadership opportunities availed to them. A study by Grant (2012)
in KwaZulu Natal schools, revealed that there were teachers elected to leadership positions, yet
they refused the leadership opportunities as they believed it was not their responsibility to lead and
they did not desire additional work. In addition, teachers who do not hold leadership positions may
be against fellow teachers with leadership roles within the school. According to Timperley (2005),
teacher leaders are at risk and vulnerable to being openly disrespected and disregarded by other
teachers, because they know that they do not carry formal authority (p. 412).

Like all other approaches to leadership, distributed leadership is not devoid of controversy or
criticism (Harris, 2011; Williams, 2011). Next, I highlight some of the criticisms of distributed
leadership as it emerged from the literature.

2.4.5 Critics of distributed leadership

While the idea of distributed leadership is popular, there are limitations worth highlighting. Several
academics (Harris & Spillane, 2008, p. 31; Harris & DeFlaminis, 2016, p. 143) reveal that
distributed leadership lacks conceptual clarity. The chameleon like quality of the term “distributed
leadership” means different things to different people. This is a central weakness. One common
misuse of the term is as a convenient “catch all” descriptor for any form of shared, collaborative
or extended leadership (Harris & Spillane, 2008, p. 31; Harris, 2011, p. 11; Harris & DeFlaminis,
2016, p. 143). Despite the critique that distributed leadership lacks conceptual clarity, for Hartley
(2007), what matters most is the fact that different authors appear to agree on the point that
distributed leadership comprises of dynamic interactions between multiple leaders and followers
(p. 398).

Another problem associated with distributed leadership is the issue of power. Lumby (2013)
postulates that distributed leadership is silent on the issues of power, authority and control. For
example, no mention is made of structural barriers such as age, gender and race, experience and
background (pp. 583-589). Lumby (2013) further argues that organisations are fields of power
and not politically neutral, so workers operate within the structure of power that create and
constrain their opportunity to lead (p. 584). Despite criticism that distributed leadership does not

23
engage with issues of power, authority and control, Harris et al., (2013) argue that where leadership
is distributed then inevitably the force of power, authority and control are also distributed (p. 929).

Another major problem with distributed leadership is the distribution of responsibilities. Harris
and Muijs (2005, p. 34) assert that distributed leadership poses the major challenge of how to
distribute development responsibility and more importantly who distributes responsibility. Several
studies identify the principal as a source or impetus for generating distributed forms of leadership
(e.g. Harris, 2011; Kelley & Dikkers, 2016). Similarly, Hopkins and Jackson (2003) state that, “It
is the responsibility of the hierarchical leaders to facilitate this process by creating the requisite
organisational conditions and climate and by providing the required support to unleash “the kinetic
and potential energy of leadership” (p. 100). However, this raises the question of whether
distributed leadership is top-down or bottom-up (Harris, 2004, p. 15). “It is possible that distributed
leadership may be found in the shape of a “top-down” initiative from a strong or charismatic
leader” (Fitzgerald & Gunter, 2006, p. 15). An example is a warning that distributed leadership is
simply “another, more attractive, mechanism for delivering ‘top down’ policies including
standardised practice” (Hargreaves & Fink, as cited in Harris & DeFlaminis, 2016, p. 143). Thus,
Lumby (2013) appears to critique that distributed leadership is littered with contradictions; it
rejects previous heroic, hierarchical models of leadership, yet also acknowledges the persistence
of such leadership, and even supports its necessity and value (p. 588).

Next, I discuss learner leadership which is relatively underdeveloped in schools. Hernez-Broome

and Hughes posits that there is a growing body of literature addressing leadership development (as
cited in Whitehead, 2009, p. 856) however, within the emergent field of school leadership, children
are virtually absent (Gunter & Thomson, 2007, p. 23). Prompted by the need for learners to be
involved in school leadership, the next section explores to what extent learners are engaged in
school leadership.

Since learner leadership is the focal point for this discussion, I begin this section by defining the
concept of learner leadership, as this definition serves as an important framework for the remainder
of the discussion.

24
2.5 Learner leadership
2.5.1 Definition of learner leadership

Various concepts (student leaders, lead learners, student voice, adolescent voice, pupil
participation, youth leadership) have been used by many researchers and academics (Angus, 2006;
Fielding, 2006; Flutter, 2006; Mitra, 2006; Collinson, 2007; Mitra & Gross, 2009; Whitehead,
2009; Kennedy & Datnow, 2011; Sonn, Belgium & Belgium, 2011; Baroutsis, Mills, McGregor,
Riele, & Hayes, 2016) when referring to learner leadership. However, because Namibia uses the
term ‘learner’ to refer to school-going children, I am choosing to use the concept of learner
leadership in the context of my discussion. Framing this discussion in this manner, I adopt Theron
and Botha’s learner leadership definition, as a system of pupil leadership found in every school by
means of which pupils take an active part in activities in a directive capacity (as cited in Uushona,
2012, p. 23).

Before I move on to sketch the benefits and different ways of including learners in school
leadership, I wish to trace the traditional views on learner leadership. This enables us to understand
how childhood has traditionally been conceptualised in a way that undermines learners’
contributions (Gunter, 2001, p. 124).

2.5.2 Traditional notion of learner leadership

Traditionally, children do not have rights and duties and are unable to be citizens and, consequently,
their contribution to education is only to be educated and trained (Gunter, 2001, p. 125). Learners
have been traditionally overlooked as valuable resources in the restructuring of schools (Kennedy
& Datnow, 2011, p.1248). Furthermore, Baroutsis et al. (2016) posit that learners have been
marginalised in mainstream schooling and are not regarded as experts in their own life and that
they are told what to do (p. 446). In addition, the Brazilian educationalist Paulo Freire, put it that
the traditional forms of education tend to adopt a “banking concept of knowledge” in which
teachers’ voices are dominant whilst students are rendered silent (as cited in Collinson, 2007,
p. 6). In line with Freire, Collinson (2007) argues that traditionally, learners were considered as an
object of education. Moreover, Drake and Roe (2003, p. 58) give a convincing example of a
historical divine right that adults had over the young and the schoolmaster had over the learners:

25
 Children should be seen and not heard. Children shall obey the will of the master. Teacher
knows best. The parents know best. That school administration and teachers must have
absolute control over students in order not to lose control altogether is a perpetuation of
long-standing folklore and a potential source of alienation of the students as well as their
parents.

The traditionally teaching pedagogy gives hints that learners were not acknowledged, as teachers
are assumed to be the active experts who deposit knowledge into passive students who simply
receive, memorise and repeat the information. By treating students as unknowing empty
receptacles, this pedagogy teaches learners to listen, accept and conform (Collinson, 2007, p. 7).

Having given a brief overview on the traditional notions of learner leadership, I next discuss the
current ideas which include learners in school leadership. My intention is to have a more informed
understanding of how learner leadership is currently perceived and what informs it.

2.5.3 The contemporary idea to involve learners in school leadership

The current disconcerting idea to involve learners in school leadership, is a form of a democratic
theory of education. Davies argues that a democratic theory of education is concerned with the
process of double democratisation, the simultaneous democratisation of both education and society
(as cited in Mncube, 2008, p. 79). On the other hand, Fraser (2008) argues that democratic theory
cannot be divorced from social theory, particularly when one deliberates on parity participation
and representation, and that social justice theory overcomes injustices and dismantles
institutionalised obstacles that prevent some people from participating on a par with others, as full
partners in social interaction (p. 16). In the same fashion, DeMatthews and Izquierdo (2016) argue
that “the dimensions of social justice are related to the equitable distribution of resources, cultural
justice and meaningful recognition, and full participation of marginalised groups in decisions that
impact their lives” (p. 281). In addition, democratic theory of education and social justice theory
refer to participation by all stakeholders in the governance of schooling, considering issues of
power relations among the adult school governors and learner governors (Mncube, 2008, p. 79).

Sithole argues that a key principle of democratic school governance is that decisions are based on
consultation, collaboration, cooperation, partnership, mutual trust and participation of all
stakeholders in the school community (as cited in Mabovula, 2009, p. 220). These principles
26
include affording students opportunities to be heard and ensuring that students participate fully in
the life of the school, including via an active role in decision-making (Baroutsis et al., 2016,
p. 451). Similarly, Kennedy and Datnow (2011) assert that schools should move toward more
collegial relationships between students and teachers to bolster student engagement, and serve the
democratic purpose of education (p. 1248). These contemporary ideas about learner engagement
fundamentally challenge traditional views about leadership (Collinson, 2007, p. 7).

Hence, the democratic principles and social justice theory advocate learners’ participation and
representation in a contemporary education system. In the following section, I look at what
literature says about the benefits of involving learners in school leadership.

2.5.4 The benefits of involving learners in school leadership

The involvement of learners in school leadership is necessary for the fulfilment of distributed
leadership (Rhodes & Brundrett, 2009), since learners constitute a major stakeholder group in
schools (Grant, 2015; Nekondo, 2016). Several authors (Fielding, 2001; Flutter, 2006; Mitra, 2006;
Mitra & Gross, 2009; Angus, 2006; Grant, 2015; Grant & Nekondo, 2016) indicate that when
learners are involved in school leadership it offers them great opportunities to speak and to be
heard. Furthermore, when learners are offered a space to speak, teachers will better understand
them, what their needs are and how best to respond (Kennedy & Datnow, 2011), as usually,
teachers speak on their behalf and misunderstand their perspective (Fielding, 2001). Learners’
participation in school leadership also helps them to develop a sense of belonging in the school
community (Kennedy & Datnow, 2011) and this attachment to schools, creates a good relationship
between learners and teachers; this then has the potential to improve academic outcomes
(Collinson, 2007; Mitra & Gross 2009). For example, Collinson (2007) provides evidence that
schools in the United Kingdom (UK) experienced positive results when they started to involve
learners in school leadership. Apart from the benefits of positive learning outcomes, the
involvement of learners in school leadership “make the formulation of school policies easier, clear,
and can lead to a greater sense of accountability and ownership in learners” (Khanare & de Lange,
2017, p. 6). Additionally, learners’ participation in school leadership serves as a positive catalyst
for change in schools; for example, Flutter (2006) provides evidence that learners help create better
school buildings and facilities, and that this improves the quality of the school environment. “This

27
reminds teachers that learners possess unique knowledge and perspective about their schools that
adults cannot fully replicate” (Mitra, 2006, p. 135). Through this experience, learners “discover
creative and life skills such as problem-solving, team working, communication, negotiation and
citizenship, all of which engender self-belief and confidence” (Flutter, 2006, p. 188).

In the next section, I explore different ways of involving learners in school leadership, but before
that I find it useful to look at Mitra and Gross’ (2009) pyramid of student voice, which is in some
ways a practical example which helps us to understand ways of involving learners in school
leadership.

Building
capacity for
leadership

Collaborating with adults

Being heard

Figure 2.2 Pyramid of student voice (Mitra & Gross, 2009, p. 523)

The pyramid begins at the bottom with the most common and basic form of student voice –’being
heard.’ At this level, learners share their problems with school personnel. ‘Collaborating with
adults’ is the next level. Here, learners work together with adult members of the school to address
the problems in the broader school environment. The final (and smallest) level at the top of the
pyramid, ‘Building capacity for leadership’, includes an explicit focus on enabling learners to share
in the leadership of the student voice initiative (Mitra & Gross, 2009, p. 523).

28
2.5.5 Different ways of involving learners in school leadership

The common way of involving learners in school leadership is through the legal body of the
Learner Representative Council (LRC). Drawing on a Namibian context, secondary school
learners are mandated by the Education Act (Namibia. Act No. 16 of 2001), to participate in school
leadership through the LRC. Although, the Namibian Education Act (Namibia. Education Act No.
16 of 2001) makes provision for learners to be included in the school leadership, where they could
participate in the decision-making process with other adults’ members (teachers & parents), two
recent Namibian learner leadership studies (Shekupakela-Nelulu, 2008; Uushona, 2012) reveal
that learners are not afforded full opportunities to participate in decision-making by the adult
members of the School Board – the highest decision-making body in schools.

Since the Namibian Education system is much like the South African education system, I was
prompted to explore the South African learner leadership archives. Several studies conducted in
South African schools (Nongubo, 2004; Mncube, 2008; Mabovula, 2009; Carr & Williams, 2009;
Phaswana, 2010; Mncube & Harber, 2013; Bessong et al., 2016; Strydom, 2017) also reveal that
secondary school learners are mandated to participate in school leadership through a body called
the Representative Council for Learners (RLC) which is like the LRC in Namibia. According to
Mncube (2008), the RCL is a body of learners democratically elected by their peers at a school,
and this RCL in turn elects those learners who should represent them on the school governing body
(p. 78). Even though learners are supposed to be involved as school leaders, the above studies
indicate that learners’ involvement through the RLC is still ineffective. The reasons for the
ineffectiveness of LRC bodies in school leadership are discussed in the remainder of this section.

Learner leadership clubs are another way of including learners in school leadership. Grant (2015)
warns that a leadership club as a structure, should not be confused with the legislated
Representative Council of Learners (RCL) or Learner Representative Council (LRC) as indicated
in the above section. Grant (2015) makes it clear that learner leadership clubs “are organised as
an extramural activity and offer a space of leadership from which learners could ‘speak back’
concerning what they considered important about their learning” (p. 96). Unlike the LRC/RCL,
learner leadership clubs are not limited to secondary schools, but can also be established in primary
schools. For example, Grant (2015) indicates that various learner leadership clubs such as
29
HIV/AIDS, Environmental and English proficiency clubs were formed in both primary and
secondary schools. In line with Flutter (2006), Grant (2015) argues that “the clubs provide the
platform for authentic communication and debate amongst learners; they offer a generative and
non-threatening space in which learners learnt to lead and they provided the catalyst for the
emergence of learner-led school change initiatives” (p. 105).

Prompted by the fact that the LRC /RCL are ineffective in school leadership, specifically in the
decision-making processes, in the next section, I explore the factors which constrain the
effectiveness of the LRC in decision-making.

2.5.6 Factors which constrain the LRC participation in school decision-making

2.5.6.1 Age and experience

Learners are denied full participation in decisions made due to their age. A study conducted by
Uushona (2012) revealed that LRC members are denied the right to full participation by adult
members of the School Board (SB), who regard learners as too young and inexperienced to deal
with crucial matters affecting the life of the school. Shekupakela-Nelulu (2008) indicates that due
to age, the LRC members were prohibited from attending certain meetings such as the appointing
of teachers as it was sensitive and require a high level of confidentiality. Similarly, studies
conducted in South Africa (Mncube, 2008; Mabovula, 2009; Phaswana, 2010) report that adult
members of the School Governing Body (SGB) feel that learners are immature and thus unable to
make sound decisions. For example, Phaswana (2010) mentions that learners were prohibited
from discussing financial matters unless they were 21 years of age.

2.5.6.2 Manipulation of learners by teachers

Mabovula (2009) asserts that learners are being manipulated by teachers and used as a form of
window dressing for SGB approval by government. Further to this, learners are being used as a
kind of tokenism just to appease them (p. 220). Moreover, an example of how teachers manipulate
learners during SGB meetings is indicated in Mncube’s (2008, p. 83) research:

It appeared that some learner governors found it difficult to regard themselves as fully
legitimate members of the SGB and they still perceived themselves as ‘guests’ on the
governing body. Learner governors seemed aware of a ‘we and they’ divide as was noted
in the usage of the pronoun ‘they’, when learners referred to adult governors. A learner
30
 governor said, when you [learner] attend the meetings of the SGB, they [adult governors]
make you feel like you are one of them and you forget that you are a learner. This makes
us feel that we are fully accepted as members of the SGB and not only there for window-
dressing.
2.5.6.3 Policy not in favour of learners

“Policy and practice is constructed and conceptualised around the interests of elite adults, and
children are virtually absent because their presence is that of objects that elite adults are meant to
give reference to and impact upon” (Gunter & Thompson, 2007, p. 23). In addition, it is noted that
the RCL members in the SGB may not be in office for more than one year, but parents and teachers
are accorded a relatively longer term of office in the SGB (Mncube, 2008). However, putting
learners in the SGB for only one year suggests that learners are not taken seriously as equal partners
with other stakeholders (Phaswana, 2010).

2.5.6.4 School principal’s style of leadership

Mncube (2008) points out that participation of learner governors can also be inhibited by the
leadership style of certain school principals, who tend to take over the role of school governing
bodies, making decisions on their behalf, together with their SMT. Furthermore, very often, school
principals, due to their position of power in schools, tend to manipulate the SGB to function in a
way that suits them and as such, learner participation in SGBs is determined by what teachers and
principals view as being appropriate (Mncube & Harber, 2013, p. 14).

2.5.6.5 Gender and power relations

Gender and power relations also limit learner participation. Mncube (2008) highlights that school
governing bodies “exacerbate inequalities of power relations, race, gender and socioeconomic
class” (p. 78). For example, female learner governors tended to be overshadowed by their male
counterparts when it came to decision-making; they are more engaged in discussions than their
male counterparts (Mncube, 2009, p. 84).

2.5.6.6 Cultural contradictions and power relations

Nyerere describes the traditional African democracy as a phenomenon in terms of which elders sit
under the big tree and talk (as cited in Mncube & Harber, 2013, p. 8). This means that parents and

31
teachers see to the absence of representative elections, restrictions in participation and to the
exclusion of learners from deliberations (Mncube & Harber, 2013, p. 9).

Furthermore, Bessong et al. (2016) assert that learner participation in decision-making is hampered
by adult traditional views on the place of children in society (p. 422). An example is in a study
carried out by Mabovula (2009) which shows that, “Parents sometimes complain that they are
children; they do not need to know everything and sometimes parents feel that learners are learners,
they should study books” (p. 227). Similarly, many parents have not allowed their children to
engage in discussions with them, thus exercising the traditional authoritarian approach maintained
at home and find it difficult to allow learners to participate in debates during meetings (Mncube,
2008, p. 86). Furthermore, a recent study conducted by Strydom (2017) indicates that tradition
and cultural norms see children just as children and it is not necessary for them to be in leadership
spaces.

2.5.6.7 Lack of support and leadership training for the LRC/RLC

Lack of support and guidance in understanding the concept of leadership is limiting the
participation of learners in school decision-making (Bessong et al., 2016, p. 422). For example,
studies (Nongubo, 2004; Shekupakela, 2008; Uushona, 2012; Strydom, 2017) evidently show that
the was no leadership training offered to the members of the LRC/RCL in schools. Unless the LRC
are trained on leadership, they will lack skills on how to participate when involved in meetings
with adults (Mncube & Harber, 2013).

To conclude this section, Grant and Nekondo (2016) emphasise that schools should show “concern
with developing learners as fully functioning human beings capable of participating, contributing
and finding fulfilment in the countless aspects of democratic life” (p. 15).

The above learner leadership literature indicates that learners’ age, principals, adult school
members, teachers, policies, power relations and culture, can contradict the LRC leadership
development. This suggested that CHAT could be a useful analytical tool for my research.

32
I now move on to discuss CHAT and the reasons for choosing CHAT as a theoretical framework
for my research.

2.6 Theoretical and analytical framework

In this section, I discuss the Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) upon which my research
is based and the premises that I utilised to analyse my research findings. I begin with a brief
description of what CHAT is. After that, I move on with a short historical background of CHAT.
Then in the reminder of the section, I discuss the relevance of CHAT, specifically, second
generation CHAT used in my study.

2.6.1 Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT)

Engeström and Miettinen (1999) describe CHAT as “a broad and multidisciplinary approach that
takes a new perspective on and develops novel conceptual tools for tackling many of the theoretical
and methodological questions that cut across the social science today” (p. 8). Lompscher (2006)
points out that CHAT is multidisciplinary, hence it is used in many fields today as it appears in
publications, congresses and conferences, workshops and unpublished discussion (p. 35). Grant
(2017) describes CHAT “as a holistic theory of practice” (p. 14). The essence of CHAT is that
human activity must be pictured in its genetically original form and analysed in its dynamics and
transformations, in its evolution and historical change. Thus, the complex activity must be
analysable as a contextual or ecological phenomenon. It is worthy to note that CHAT examines
human activity to identify contradictions and tensions and has [the] potential to resolve those
tensions that are disturbing the human activity (Engeström, 1987, p. 61). Contradictions applicable
to this study are discussed in Section 2.6.4. Next, I give a brief historical overview of CHAT.

2.6.2 A brief historical overview of CHAT

Historically, CHAT has its roots in the Marxist social theory of Karl Marx, a German socialist
philosopher (Engeström, 1999; Engeström & Miettinen, 1999; Lektorsky, 1999; Leont’ev, 2002;
Sokolova, 2002; Lompscher, 2006; Roth & Lee, 2007; Yamagata-Lynch, 2010; Sannino, 2011;
Schunk, 2012). Lompscher (2002) puts it that the Marxism social theory “focuses on object-
related activity of real people, on practical and critical activity aimed at transforming the world
with human beings determined by historical, political, ideological, cultural and social relationships
33
that are themselves rooted in the development of productive powers and relationships of
production” (p. 80). Thus, Marx (1976) contends that “the coincidence of the changing of
circumstances and of human activity or self-change can be conceived and rationally understood
only as revolutionary practice" (Engeström, 1999, p.3). Equally, Leont’ev (1978) posits that the
theory of Marxism put forward “practical activity in which people enter practical objects of the
surrounding world, test their resistance, and act on them, acknowledge their objective properties”
(p. 12). Also, Chilvers (2011) puts it that the foundation of CHAT is a Marxist idea that humans
master nature through their activity and thereby become creators of the world rather than simply
passive subjects shaped by the environment (p. 80). While discussing the origin of CHAT, it is
worth mentioning that CHAT has evolved through three generations; the first generation, second
generation and the third generation. However, I will focus more on the second generation which I
adopt for my study. Next, I briefly discuss the pivotal theory for the first generation of CHAT so
that it can pave the way for me to discuss the second generation, adopted in my study.

2.6.3 The first generation theory

The Marxism theory was brought into psychology by Lev Semenovich Vygotsky, a Russian
psychologist when he developed a Cultural Historical Theory in the early 1920s, which Engeström
termed “the first generation” of CHAT. (Engeström, 2001; Sannino, 2011). The Cultural Historical
Theory was developed when Russian psychologists experienced challenges when not agreeing on
appropriate methodologies for studying psychology as a science. Vygotsky was then entrusted by
the government to reformulate psychology, where after he introduced a Cultural Historical Theory,
together with Alexander Romanovich Luria and Alexey Nikolayevich Leont’ev (Tobach, 1999, pp.
136-137; Yamagata-Lynch, 2010, p. 15). The cultural-historical aspects of Vygotsky’s theory
postulates that the development of human consciousness is determined by individual interaction
with the environment (Schunk, 2012, p. 242). Vygotsky introduced mediated action as a concept
to explain how human consciousness develops by interacting with the historical developing
cultural tools in an environment and results in an individual finding new meanings in their world
(Lektorsky, 1999, p. 109; Stetsenko, 1999, p. 233; Engeström, 2001, p.135; Lompscher, 2002,
p. 80; Yamagata-Lynch, 2010, p. 13). Vygotsky’s theory posits that mediation occurs in the
relationship between the subject (human agent) and objects by way of cultural means (tools and

34
sign) – mediating artefacts (as cited in Knott-Craig, 2017, p. 97). Figure 2.3 below illustrates
Vygotsky’s concept of mediated actions.

Mediating Artifacts/Tools

Subject Object
Figure 2.3: Vygotsky’s model of mediated action and (b) its common reformation (adapted from
Engeström, 1987)

The above figure shows that Vygotsky shared Marx’s idea that the human essence lies in unity.
Therefore, the Cultural Historical Theory illuminates that humans cannot be dissociated from their
social environment hence society influences human cognition through its cultural tools evolving
over time (Schunk, 2012). It is therefore against this background that Engeström (2001) argued
that “the individual could no longer be understood without his or her cultural means; and the
society could no longer be understood without the agency of individuals who use and produce
artefacts” (p.134). Next, I discuss the second generation.

2.6.4 The perspectives of the second generation activity theory

The Vygotskian Cultural Historical Theory was found to have limitations. The limitations of the
first generation was that the unit of analysis remained individually focused and lacked subjectivity
(Engeström, 1987; Engeström & Miettinen, 1999; Lektorsky, 1999; Engeström, 2001; Rey, 2002;
Sannino, 2011). Engeström and Miettinen (1999) point out that the unity of analysis in the Cultural

35
Historical theory was “object-oriented action mediated by cultural tools and signs” (p. 4).
Mediation by other human beings and social relations was not theoretically integrated into the
triangular model of action (ibid., p. 4). Such integration was overcome by the second generation,
largely inspired by Leont’ev’s work. The Vygotskian Cultural Historical Theory is equally too
abstract; however, it should be taken as a hint for extensive investigation for a research work
(Leont’ev, 1978).

Leont’ev (1978) emphasises the roles of the society in an activity system, arguing that human
activity cannot be isolated from social relations. Leont’ev therefore integrated a few elements such
as the object, subject, mediating artefacts (signs and tools) rules, community and division of labour
to the activity theory’s second generation.

The unit of analysis expanded from individual action to collective activity (Engeström &
Miettinen, 1999; Engeström 2001; Sannino, 2011). However, Leont'ev never graphically expanded
Vygotsky's original model into a model of a collective activity system, but Engeström graphically
represented it as illustrated it below in Figure 2.4 (Engeström, 1987).

Figure 2.4: Second generation CHAT (Engeström, 1987)

36
2.6.5 The relevancy of CHAT to this study

In line with Engeström (2015) who argues that “CHAT accounts for the environment/context
where the activity is taking place, the history or background of their cultures, the roles of the
artefacts, motivation and the complexities of the real life [situation]” (p. 32), in this sense CHAT
helped me to be mindful of the school as a social community with its own history, culture and
rules, which have [the] potential value of shaping the LRC leadership development in the school.
Engeström (1987) further argues that an activity is not a static phenomenon, but something that is
socially, culturally and historically evolving. Hence, it was necessary for me to build a contextual
profile of the school, showing its history. CHAT is also relevant to my study since it could help me
to identify systemic contradictions and tensions within the learners’ activity system of leaders.
Engeström (2015) posits that contradictions are not problems or conflicts, but tensions which have
historically accumulated within an activity system. Since my study focused only on one activity
system of learners, the focus is only on the primary and secondary contradictions. According to
Engeström (2015), primary contradictions are within each element of the activity system, while
secondary contradictions are between two or more elements of the activity system. In a CHAT
interventionist study, as the contradictions surface and are later analysed, the study engages the
research participants in formulating possible ways forward which strengthens the promotion and
development of LRC leadership in the school. However, this study is purely interpretive, and it
does not intend to pursue to the point of intervention. I believe a rich, interpretive account of the
status quo, followed by an in-depth analysis using CHAT as a framework, will provide a strong
foundation on which future interventions can be built. In short, this study seeks to understand the
problems and explore possible ways forward, rather than intervene and implement changes.

The unit of analysis in my study is thus the collective activity of the LRC. Leont’ev (1978)
emphasises the role of the society in an activity system, arguing that human activity cannot be
isolated from social relations or from the life of society, and in this case, I look beyond the LRC
to the wider community of the activity in the school, to see how the interactions of the LRC
members with the wider school community influence and transform the LRC leadership. Hence,
this study cannot be viewed as an investigation of a discrete phenomenon, in the same way as the
Spillane et al. (2004) model of distributed leadership, does not view leadership as a discrete

37
phenomenon. In this sense, CHAT and the distributed leadership model work well together. The
next figure shows the relationships within elements as applicable to my study.

Artefacts /Tools
What artefacts/tools used in the learners’ activity system to develop LRC leadership and
how have these tools changed over time? In what ways are the tools in use constraining or
promoting LRC leadership in the school?

Object: leadership development on LRC

Subject: LRC Outcome
insight
into leadership development on LRC

Rules Community Division of labour

What are the cultural-norms
values, beliefs and attitudes
that contradict the LRC
Leadership development?
In what ways does the In what ways does the division
the community of labour contradict the LRC
(principal, SMT/SB, leadership development?
teachers & learners contradict
leadership development?
contradicts the LRC
leadership development?

Figure 2.5: Various elements depicting a second generation activity system applicable to LRC
leadership development (adapted from Engeström, 1987)

Having discussed the relevance of CHAT in my study, now I move on to discuss the critiques of
CHAT.

2.6.6 Few critiques of CHAT

A full discussion of the critiques of CHAT is beyond the scope of my study; however, here I discuss
a few critiques. Roth argues that “the triangular representation excludes the subjectivity, sensuous
experience, emotion, and ethico-moral issues (as cited in Sannino, 2011, p. 577). “Without

38
articulating and theorising needs, emotions and feelings, we are hardly to arrive at more than a
reductionist image of activity generally” (ibid., p. 577). This implies that needs, emotions, and
feelings need to be included in the triangular representation, so that one can get the whole picture
of the activity system. Another critique is the fact that CHAT “fails to address the power dynamics
within activity systems that may inhibit the questioning and sharing of information required to
identify solutions to contradictions’’ (Chilvers, 2011, p. 83). In an interventionist study for
example, within the context of a learner leadership study, children may not be free to speak and
contribute fully in the presence of the school management/adult School Board members and
teachers and this may inhibit learning and change. However, this critique did not apply to my study
since I did not move to a point of resolving contradictions.

2.7 Conclusion
In this chapter, I presented the review of literature related to the field of leadership and
management and particularly with regards to learner leadership which is the focus for my research.
I discussed the origins of the concept leadership and management which helped me to understand
and distinguish these interrelated concepts. I went on to trace and present the historical background
of educational leadership and management as a field, which gave me a better understanding of
why schools function like businesses in the present day. I further present the traditional leadership
approaches which placed faith and hope of transforming schools through actions of individual
leaders. I then moved on to present a more contemporary distributed leadership approach which
changes the focus from powerful individuals, to a team of leaders, constituting a leadership system.
The focus of the research, learner leadership and the benefits of involving learners in school
leadership, as well as the factors constraining their involvement in school leadership was
presented. I concluded the chapter with a discussion of CHAT as the theoretical framework and
analytical tool for this research.

In the next chapter, I discuss the methodology and methods I used to generate the data.

39
 CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction
In this chapter, I describe the methodological and design procedures I used to generate, interpret,
and analyse data, which enabled me to answer my research questions. This chapter commences
with a brief background of my research goal and questions, followed by an explanation of how I
set up the research design. From here onwards, I discuss the research orientation in which this
study is located, the approach, the selected research site, as well as the participants who took part
in the study. I then provide a thorough description of all the data gathering tools I used and the
motivations for using them. In the remainder of the chapter, I elaborate upon the data analysis
methods, validity and trustworthiness of the findings, positionality, and research ethics.

3.2 Research goal and research questions

To remind the reader, my study aim was to gain an insight into how learner leadership was
understood and practiced within the Learner Representative Council in the school. This study also
unearthed the cultural-historical factors that enabled or constrained the Learner Representative
Council’s leadership development. And lastly, the study identified the possible ways on how LRC
leadership could be improved and promoted in the school.

The study has been driven by the following research questions:

5. What is the current understanding of learner leadership in the school?

6. How is learner leadership practiced and implemented by the LRC members in the school?

7. What are the conditions that promoted and/or constrained the Learner Representative
Council’s leadership development in the school?

8. What needs to be done to strengthen the promotion of the Learner Representative Council’s
leadership development in the school?

40
3.3 Research orientation
Research orientation is defined as “a cluster of beliefs that guide action which influence what
should be studied, how research should be done, and how results should be interpreted” (Guba &
Lincoln, 2005, p. 183). This study was a qualitative, interpretive case study since I examined a
phenomenon – one case amongst numerous widespread occurrences (Nieuwenhuis, 2007, p. 59) –
in considerable detail in its historical and lived context. Stake (2005) refers to a case study as a
process of studying an event or a phenomenon in a bounded system (p. 444). In my study, the case
was confined to the school and is therefore an intrinsic (ibid. p. 34) interpretative case study, since
it does not claim to provide a blueprint or example for anyone to follow. A case study was
applicable as I focused specifically on LRC leadership in a real-life school context to understand
how participants view and experience learner leadership in the LRC. The case study further
enabled me to utilise multiple tools of collecting data, allowing me to gain a deep understanding
that led to a rich interpretation of how learner leadership was understood and practiced within the
LRC (Yin, 1994; Stake, 2005).

In the following section, I briefly describe the research site.

3.3.1 Selection of the research site and duration of study

Besides understanding how the participants viewed and experienced learner leadership of the LRC
in a rural school, my study also aimed at understanding the cultural and historical conditions which
promoted and/or hindered learner leadership development within the LRC. In a rural school
environment, the impact of traditional norms, beliefs and values are still strong and do influence
learner leadership development (Uushona, 2012). I specifically selected the school for its
convenience (Pascoe, 2014), because I conducted my MEd pre-course assignment there and I am
therefore already known there as a researcher. The school was easily accessible to me, since I lived
and worked in the same area and therefore understood the context in which the school exists. I
spent a further two months at the school, and in the process gained a deep understanding of LRC
leadership development at the school. Along with the aforementioned, I understood the social
context of the school in terms of its own history, culture, and rules which have the potential of
shaping LRC leadership development.
The following part gives a comprehensive description of the case study school.
41
3.3.2 Description of the case study school

The case study school was a non-payment government secondary school, located in a rural area of
northern Namibia. The school was established 42 years back and ranges from Grade 8-12. It offers
five different fields of study, namely; Natural Science, Social Science, Commerce, Home
Economics and Languages.

At the time I conducted my research, the school had a male school principal, three Heads of
Departments, 43 teachers, and 26 non-teaching staff members. At that stage, the school had 886
enrolled learners. It is worth mentioning that most of the school population (the school principal,
heads of departments, teachers, learners, & the non-teaching staff members) belonged to the
Owambo tribe, spoke the same language (Oshiwambo), and shared the same history and culture.

The school had a School Board/ School Governing Body which was the highest decision-making
body in the school. The School Board was comprised of 12 members, which included the principal,
hostel superintendent, and six parents of learners at the school. Two teachers at the school and two
learners from the Learner Representative Council also constituted the School Board. In addition,
the school had a School Management Team which consisted of the school principal, three Heads
of Departments, two teachers, and a hostel superintendent. Furthermore, the school’s Learner
Representative Council was made up of 23 learners, from Grades 8-12, who represented other
learners in learner leadership roles.

The building and infrastructure of the school consisted of an administration block which was
comprised of the offices of the school principal, HoDs, school administrators, and the hostel
superintendent. There was also a very big staffroom for the teachers. Moreover, the school had
reasonable school facilities, ranging from the classrooms for its 886 learners, a large and functional
library where learners went to study, and a computer laboratory for the learners that were learning
typesetting and word processing. The school had a fully equipped Science Laboratory as well as a
furnished Home-Ecology Class. While I describe the school facilities, I also want to indicate that
the school had a hostel were most learners were accommodated, whereas only a few learners were
day scholars. Accommodation was also provided to teachers and matrons who supervised the
boarding establishment.
42
In term of its academic performance, the school has been well known for its notable academic
excellence in the region and in the circuit. The school has, over the past years, scored above 90%
in its pass rate in the Grade 10 national examination, and performs fairly well in the Grade 12
national examinations.

I now move on to discuss the participants involved in this study and my reasons for choosing them.

3.4 Participant sampling procedures

In this study, a sample of 29 participants were drawn to define the research population. My primary
participants were the collective unit of 23 LRC members. After reading through The Education
Act (Namibia. Education Act No. 16 of 2001) and the regulations made under The Education Act
(Namibia. Education Act No. 16 of 2002) I discovered that the LRC liaison teacher, the School
Management Team and School Board work directly with the LRC in schools and purposively
selected them as my secondary participants. Pascoe (2014) explains purposive sampling, as
“choosing the elements we wish to include in our sample, based on a set list of characteristics” (p.
142). I selected the school principal and three HoDs who were members of the School Management
Team in the school and the School Board Chairperson as a representation of the parents who served
on the School Board. The LRC liaison teacher was selected based on her position of guiding and
mentoring the LRC in the school. She was not willing to participate in the study because of
personal reasons. I then chose the former LRC liaison teacher based on his past experiences of
guiding and mentoring the RLC. To make the study more authentic I wanted to hear the voice of
the LRC members, and therefore decided to include snowball sampling. Creswell (2014) explains
snowball sampling “as a form of purposeful sampling that typically proceeds after a study begins
and occurs when the researcher asks participants to recommend other individuals to be samples”
(p. 231). In this case, the two main leaders of the LRC (head-boy and head-girl) provided me with
the names of other LRC members that I included in the interview.
In the next section, I discuss the four data gathering tools that I used to collect the data for my
study.

43
3.5 Data gathering tools
I used document analysis, observation, open-ended questionnaires and semi-structured interviews.
My choice to employ the mentioned data gathering tools was informed by Yin (1994) who posits
that documentation, observation and interviews are good sources of case study evidence as they
complement each other and serve as a means of triangulation of data (pp. 78-91). Regarding
questionnaires, I was aware that it is more useful when conducting large scale surveys (Maree &
Pietersen, 2012; Bertram & Christiansen, 2014) but I found it necessary to administer open-ended
questionnaires based on its unique advantages (see Section 3.5.4). Moreover, though a
questionnaire is not a source of case study evidence, it however strengthened the validity and
trustworthiness of my findings (see Section 3.7).

Having explained data gathering tools, I now focus on document analysis as it was the first data
gathering tool to be used. It gave me sufficient background information to obtain a clear picture of
LRC leadership development in the school.

3.5.1 Document analysis

Document analysis is “a systematic procedure for reviewing or evaluating documents – both

printed and electronic material” (Bowen, 2009, p. 27). For Nieuwenhuis (2007) document analysis
as a data gathering technique focuses on analysing all types of written communications that may
shed light on the phenomenon that is being investigated. In this study, I first analysed the
regulations made under the Education Act (Namibia. Education Act No. 16 of 2001) from which I
obtained clarity on the power and functions of the LRC. I compared it with the practical functions
which the LRC were executing during the time of my research at the school. I further analysed the
school internal policies, the LRC calendar of activities, the organogram structure of the LRC and
the LRC minutes of meetings. In addition, I explored the LRC files, pictures of leadership training
they attended, and the School Board files and memos concerning LRC leadership in the school. I
agree with Bowen (2009) that document analysis provides a researcher with “a means of tracking
change and development” (p. 30), since I wanted to find out how LRC leadership has been
historically developed in the school. While engaging in document analysis I found it necessary to
add to my interview questions. Bardarch (2009) mentions that “information contained in
documents can help to generate new interview questions” (p. 69). Another reason for me to use
44
document analysis as a data gathering tool was based on the reason that, it strengthened the validity
of my findings since I corroborated the findings from interviews, open-ended questionnaires and
observation (Yin, 1994). However, Creswell (2014) warns that “documents may be incomplete,
inauthentic, or inaccurate” (p. 245), which I experienced first-hand, since I had a critical situation
whereby not all minutes from the School Board and LRC meetings were clear for me to interpret,
since they were handwritten and hard to read. To obtain clarity on the above mentioned, I verified
the minutes with open-ended questionnaires, semi-structured interviews and observation to obtain
a clear interpretation.

Next, I explain the open-ended questionnaires.

3.5.2 Open-ended questionnaires

My study focused on a group of 23 LRC members in the school. This suggests that it was not
possible for me to conduct individual or focus interviews with such a big group as it could have
compromised the time I spent at the school, as well as with the time of the LRC members. As I
wanted to get the lived experiences of the LRC regarding their leadership development in the
school, I found that questionnaires would be the best option for me to get the views of all the LRC
members. I administered open-ended questionnaires to all members of the LRC (see Appendix D
for the administered open-ended questions). Irwin (2003) refers to a questionnaire as “a series of
questions set out on paper, and to be answered on paper rather than verbally” (p. 6). Open-ended
questions are questions which respondents may answer as they like – they are not given specific
categories or other answers to choose from (Bertram & Christiansen, 2014). I decided to employ
open-ended questions based on the argument that open-ended questions allow respondents to
write/answer freely in their own terms and are not forced to answer in any way (Cohen, Manion,
& Morrison, 2011; Bryman, 2012). Questionnaires provided the LRC members with opportunities
to share their empirical experiences on how they were prepared for leadership as the LRC in the
school.

I was aware of the shortcomings of administering open-ended questionnaires. For example, their
openness could lead to “irrelevant and redundant information and their openness may make the
questionnaires appear long and discouraging” (Cohen et al., 2011). In this regard, I received a total

45
of 20 completed questionnaires that were completed, from 23 respondents. This affected the
response rate and the findings of the study. Furthermore, some of the returned completed
questionnaires were incomplete. Nevertheless, when I went through the responses in the
questionnaires, I picked up responses which assisted me with possible probing and follow-up
questions, which I used during the individual interview process with some participants.

In the following section, I discuss how interviews were used to gather data.

3.5.3 Interviews

An interview is “a two-way conversation in which the interviewer asks the participants questions
to collect data and learn about the ideas, beliefs, views, opinions and behaviours of the
participants” (Nieuwenhuis, 2012, p. 87). Additionally, “an interview is not merely the neutral
exchange of asking questions and getting answers, but it is a collaborative effort where two or
more people are involved in a discussion” (Fontana & Frey, 2005, p. 690). It is against this
background that I engaged myself in the discussions through a means of semi-structure interviews
with the school principal, the School Board Chairperson, three Heads of Departments, former LRC
liaison teacher and six LRC members which include two LRC members served in the School Board
(see Appendix E for the interview schedule). The purpose here was to guarantee that the
conclusions satisfactorily represented the entire population. I found an interview an appropriate
data gathering tool since I could ask the participants to give more detail and examples to
substantiate their responses, particularly on how leadership was practiced and implemented by the
LRC members and also on the factors which enabled and constrained the LRC’s leadership
development in the school. Furthermore, semi-structured interviews offered me an opportunity to
ask for clarity about the information I obtained from the document analysis, chiefly the minutes of
the School Board and LRC meetings.

Even though interviews helped me to obtain rich data which answered my research questions, I
also experienced problems with interviews. For example, it was difficult for most of the
interviewed participants to commit to a time for the interview and keep to the scheduled
appointment. I was patient enough until I managed to interview all the targeted participants. The
interviews were conducted in English, since all the participants interviewed were proficient in

46
English. I used a voice recorder during the interview process and I transcribed the data for analysis
purposes.

In the next section, I discuss observation as the last data gathering tool used.

3.5.4 Observation

Observation is the “systematic process of looking and recording the behavioural patterns of
participants, objects and occurrences without necessarily questioning or communicating with
them” (Nieuwenhuis, 2007, p. 84). I chose to use observation since I wanted to see the reality of
how LRC leadership was practiced and implemented in the school and this was in line with
Creswell, (2014) who argues that observation “allows a researcher to see and record the
information as it occurs in a setting” (p. 235). Therefore, observation offered me an opportunity to
gather the live data from the LRC as they practically executed their leadership roles. I attended
most of the spaces where the LRC members enacted their leadership roles, such as morning
devotions, monitoring and serving of food at the dining hall, and coordination of special events
like the African Child Day and learners’ motivational programmes. Furthermore, I observed the
supervision of study sessions for both afternoon and evening, by the LRC members. I also attended
the Tuesday meetings that the LRC members had with the school principal. My observations did
not only take place inside the school, but I also observed the LRC members executing their
leadership roles outside the school. Observation was mainly done in relation with Mitra and Gross’
(2009) pyramid of learner voice and the regulation made under the Education Act (Namibia.
Education Act No. 16 of 2001) which stipulate the power and functions of the LRC members.
Additionally, I observed how the LRC members interacted and collaborated with other learners,
teachers and the School Management Team in relation to the model of distributed leadership.

I experienced some challenges with observation. I was not granted permission to attend the School
Board meetings, so this did not permit me to confirm the data I obtained from the document
analysis and what I was told in the interviews and questionnaires about the participation of the two
LRC members on the School Board. Another challenge I encountered was the fact that I found it
difficult to enter the girls’ hostel dormitories to confirm how the LRC were enacting their

47
leadership roles as it strongly emerged from document analysis, interviews and questionnaires. To
avoid bias in my findings, I decided not to conduct my observation at the boys’ hostel dormitories.

During my observations, I kept a record of events and activities executed by the LRC members
inside and outside the school. Furthermore, I had the opportunity to take photographs of my
observations (see Chapter Four).

Having discussed the data gathering tools used, along with its challenges and the reasons for using
them, I now move on to discuss how I analysed the data.

3.6 Data analysis

Data analysis is a process of making meaning and sense of the data collected regarding a
phenomenon being studied (Merriam, 1998; Creswell, 2014). In in this study, I analysed the data
in two different phases. In the first phase I used inductive content analysis, while in the second
phase I adopted Cultural History Activity Theory (CHAT) to surface the contradictions which
culturally and historically accumulated in the LRC leadership activity system.

To begin with, I discuss phase one, the inductive content analysis.

3.6.1 Content analysis

Content analysis is used to “explore and identify overt and covert themes and patterns embedded
in a text” (Pascoe, 2014, p. 234). I analysed the data considering the order in which data was
generated. I began by analysing the documents. Thereafter, completed questionnaires, interview
transcriptions and observation field notes were analysed. I read and reread through the data and as
a read and reread, I assigned different codes by means of colour-coding, whereby I used different
highlighters to highlight similar information which answered my different research questions. I
then arranged the coded information into different categories according to their similarities and
differences, from where I generated the main themes and sub-themes. I then discussed the emerged
main themes and sub-themes, considering my research questions and the literature review (see
Chapter Four and Five). The process of coding helped me to develop a deeper understanding about

48
the data, but it took me time as I read through the data several times and corroborated the data
from different sources that I used (see Rule & John, 2011; Creswell, 2014).

The following part explains the second phase of data analysis in which I adopted the Cultural
Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) as an analytical tool.

3.6.2 Cultural Historical Activity Theory - CHAT

As discussed earlier in Chapter Two, this study is framed by CHAT – following is a discussion on
how CHAT was used as an analytical tool. I analysed all the data that I had collected from various
sources (document analysis, questionnaires, interviews & observations) through the lens of CHAT,
whereby I surfaced the contradictions which were within the LRC leadership activity system in
relation with other interconnected elements such as rules, division of labour and the wider
community which interacted with the LRC members (subjects). CHAT helped me to get a better
understanding of how the ecological context of the school functions, in terms of its own culture
and history, contradicted the LRC leadership in the school. Although this study did not move to
the Change Laboratory stage where contradictions were supposed to be resolved, the study
however managed to probe for possible ways to overcome the contradictions that were facing LRC
leadership development in the school.

3.7 Validity and trustworthiness

The general understanding of validity is the extent to which instruments measure what they are
supposed to measure (Cohen et al., 2011; Pietersen & Maree, 2007; Koonin, 2014). However,
Schwartz-Shea and Yanow (2012) argue that the degree of measurement is essential to positivist
research design but not in interpretive research, where the interest is on understanding research
participants’ meaning making in their own context, which is historically and culturally constituted
(pp. 93- 94). In the context of my study, validity is the “degree to which results obtained from the
analysis of data represent a phenomenon as being studied” (Nyakundi, 2012, p. 36). The
trustworthiness in a qualitative inquiry is defined as “the ability of the inquiry’s findings to be
credible, dependable and confirmable” (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012, p. 92). Trustworthiness
is how believable the researcher’s claims are, and to what extent the reader can trust the data and

49
the findings of the researcher (Koonin, 2014). I ensured validity and trustworthiness of my findings
as described below.

3.7.1 Pilot study

Firstly, I conducted a pilot study with my supervisors. I gave my questionnaires to my supervisors

to go through and check if they were clear and understandable. I also interviewed my supervisors.
In addition, I provided my supervisors with my observation sheet to see if I was clear on what I
wanted to observe. My intention of conducting a pilot study was mainly to see if my research tools
and the research questions were clear and understandable (Koonin, 2014). Based on the feedback
and information I got from the pilot study, I refined and modified the research questions which
were not very clear and understandable to my supervisors (Yin, 1994). Furthermore, I also
reworked the observation sheet and became more specific by adding all the activities regarding
LRC leadership which I anticipated observing at the school. Secondly, I piloted the questionnaires
and interview questions at the school where I was currently teaching, to test how clear and how
understandable the questions were, and adjustments were also made.

3.7.2 Triangulation

Maxwell (1996) refers to triangulation “as a process whereby a researcher collects the data from a
diverse range of individuals and settings, using a variety of methods” (p. 75). In this study, I
ensured validity and trustworthiness of the findings by employing multiple sources of data, namely
document analysis, questionnaires, individual interviews and observation. Through triangulation,
I read across all different sets of data and gained a holistic picture of the LRC leadership
development in the school together with the Education Act (Namibia. Education Act No. 16 of
2001) establishing it. In addition, triangulation enabled me to compare the multiple evidence that
emerged from different participants (principal, School Board Chairperson, Heads of Departments,
former LRC mentor teacher & LRC members).

3.7.3 Member-checking

Member-checking refers to the “practice of sending or bringing written material involving the
people studied back to them” (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012, p. 106). The intention of member-
checking is to “help a researcher to rule out the potential possibility of misinterpretation of the

50
meaning of what the participants have said and the perspective they have on what is going on”
(Maxwell, 1996, p. 94). I used member-checking by bringing back the transcribed interview
records to the participants (the principal, HoDs, School Board Chairperson, LRC mentor teacher
& LRC members) so that they could read through and verify whether the information had been
transcribed correctly. The comments that they provided were incorporated into my data sets.

3.7.4 Reflexivity

Reflexivity refers to “a researcher’s active consideration of and engagement with the ways in
which his own sense-making and the circumstance that might have affected it” (Schwartz-Shea &
Yanow, 2012, p. 102). I kept a reflexive research journal where I recorded and critically reflected
on all aspects that I encountered throughout the entire research process. This served as a sounding
board for checking the reliability of the research gathering process. Having given a comprehensive
account on how I ensured the validity and trustworthiness of my findings, in the next section, I
describe my positionality in the case study school.

3.8 My positionality in the research

A researcher’s positionality is the acknowledgment of whether both the researcher and the
participants are familiar with each other and if the researcher is familiar with the research site
prior to research (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012). According to Mercer (2007), insider
researchers are “the members of specified groups and collectivities, or occupants of specified
social status while outsider researchers are the nonmembers” (p. 3). Although I was not a staff
member of the case study school, prior to my research, I had conducted my Master’s pre-course
assignment there in January 2017. I was therefore quite familiar with some of the participants,
especially the school principal, all the HoDs, the former LRC mentor teacher and the School Board
Chairperson. I thus considered myself a visiting researcher at the place. I also anticipated that my
status of being a teacher would not disappear and that my presence at the LRC meetings in which
I would observe and record the members’ activities, may influence them during the individual
interviews, no matter who the members were or their position at the school.

Prior to the data collection stage of this research, I had a meeting with all the participants to build
a rapport and ensure smooth social interactions with them. I explained my purpose for being there
51
and encouraged the LRC members to be open and comfortable in our conversations, and never to
feel intimidated. At least this helped the LRC members to interact and talk to me freely. I was
careful during when observing and recording, since I wanted the participants to not feel pressured.
I would pretend I was not looking by making myself look busy with my work, all the while
concentrating on what was being said. In this way, I picked up every point and action that was
made. With regards to the principal, HoDs, the School Board Chairperson and the LRC former
teacher, I did not experience any power relations problems. The reason being that they were adults,
mature and held managerial positions at the school.

In the next section, I focus on how research ethics were taken into consideration.

3.9 Research ethics

Research ethics are the principles and professional standards that are essential for practicing
research in a responsible way (Louw, 2014). The chief goal of research ethics is to minimise the
risk to participants; therefore, it is always the responsibility of the researcher to ensure that his/her
research is ethically conducted (Bless, Higson-Smith, & Sithole, 2013, pp. 28-29).

For my study, I ensured the following research ethics.

3.9.1 Gaining access and permission to the case study school

Data gathering is almost always done on somebody’s home ground. This means that a researcher
needs to ensure that access is permitted to get into a research site (Stake, 2005). In line with
Creswell (2014), many cases studies’ access is guarded by the ‘gatekeeper’– people who can
control the researchers’ access to those whom they really want to target (p. 255). In this research,
my ‘gatekeeper’ was the school principal of the case study school. Prior to my data collection
stage, I had to humbly request permission from the school principal so that I could gain access to
the school and to the targeted participants sampled for the study (see Appendix B2). I gave the

52
principal a permission requisition letter that I wrote and the one written by my supervisors (see
Appendix A). The letter explained the purpose and the duration of my study as well as all the
protocols of the research. The principal was so helpful and happy to grant me permission to
conduct my research at the school (see Appendix B4). I also submitted the same letter at the office
of the Director of Education in the Oshana region and obtained permission (see Appendix B1 &
B3).

3.9.2 Informed consent

Participants should know that they are taking part in a research study. They
should be formally informed of this and should give their consent. They should
clearly understand what will be required of them during their participation,
whether and how their identities will be protected and how results will be used.
(Louw, 2014, p. 264)

For this research, I designed a consent letter requesting permission from the participants to
participate in this research (see Appendix C). In the consent letter, I explained the purpose of the
study and the reasons why participants were sampled for the study. I indicated all the procedures
and the duration of the study. Very importantly, I made it clear that participation was voluntarily,
and that participants had the right to withdraw from the study at any time without being required
to offer any explanation (Bless et al., 2013). Each participant signed his/her consent and I kept the
signed consent letter in my research file. Since the LRC members were minor children, their
parents had to sign on their behalf, as they were requested to discuss the consent letter with their
children This is in line with Stake (2005) who argues that children can only participate in research
when legally written permission has been obtained from parents.

3.9.3 Confidentiality and anonymity

Although confidentiality and anonymity were included in the informed consent, I found it
necessary to discuss how I have practically ensured it during the research process. As Bless et al.,
(2013) states, confidentiality and anonymity are essential ethical requirements in research. The
first day I met with all the participants, I explained to them that the information was to be treated
with a high degree of confidentiality, no names would be recorded or mentioned (pseudonyms
were used) and that I would not disclose the information to anyone apart from my supervisors. I

53
really adhered to what I told the participants in line with the principle of fidelity, which implies
faithfulness and keeping promises or agreements (Bless et al., 2013).

3.9.4 Harm and deception

I was mindful that a school is a complex organisation. I respected the culture of the participants
and of the school, as well as religious and gender preferences among teachers and learners. This
was to ensure that no one was emotionally or psychologically harmed. I treated the research site
with respect, adhered to its cultural rules and guarded against disrupting the process of teaching
and learning. Furthermore, I tried not to hide the nature of my study from the participants, so I
honestly told them everything that I wanted to do with them in the school.

3.10 Conclusion
In conclusion, this chapter focused on the methodology adopted and sketched the steps and
procedures that were followed in the research process. The various factors and elements were
explained, which I believed have fostered an effective mechanism to research the leadership
development within the Learner Representative Council in a secondary school.

In the next chapter, I display the raw data as collected from the use of document analysis, open-
ended questionnaires, semi-structured interviews and observations.

54
 CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION

4.1 Introduction
As I indicated in Chapter One, the purpose of this study was to gain an insight into how learner
leadership was understood and practiced within the LRC in the school. This study also surfaced
the cultural-historical forces which enabled and constrained LRC leadership development. And
lastly, the study explored possible solutions to how LRC leadership can be strengthened and
promoted in the school.

The data presented in this chapter were obtained from document analysis, open-ended
questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and observation field notes. A total number of 12
participants were interviewed: the head-boy, the head-girl, one of the two LRC School Board
members, three ordinary LRC members, the three HoDs, the school principal, School Board
Chairperson and the former LRC liaison teacher in the school. I administered open-ended
questionnaires with 23 LRC members but only 20 completed questionnaires were returned. All the
data gathering instruments (document analysis, open-ended questionnaires, semi-structured
interviews, and observation) equally provided rich data needed for this study.

To comply with anonymity and confidentiality I used codes for all research participants (Bryman,
2012). The codes closely resembled the positions and roles of the participants in the school. Below
I explain the codes and profiles of research participants.

4.2 Coding and profiles of research participants

4.2.1 The LRC members: (LRC1-LRC23)

The Learner Representative Council was made up of 23 LRC members, 12 boys and 11 girls. All
the members were from Grade 10 -12 and were between the age of 15-18. The Grade 8 and 9
learners were too young to represent other learners in the school. These LRC members were elected

55
in 2016 by fellow learners, under the co-ordination of the LRC liaison teacher. Portfolios such as
heady-boy, head-girl, deputy head-boy and head-girl, secretary, finance, sports and entertainment,
disciplinary academic, hygiene and School Board were allocated to the members. All the LRC
members were boarding in the school hostel.

4.2.2 The former LRC liaison teacher (LRCT1)

This teacher has been teaching at the school for the past 16 years. He has been the LRC liaison
teacher since 2004 until 2014. He was tasked by the school principal to guide the LRC members
and, so it was not a position he had applied for. He was still responsible for teaching Geography.

4.2.3 The school principal (P1)

The school principal of this school has been in the teaching profession for 21 years and was
appointed as principal in 2005. However, he has been at the school for six years after he transferred
from another school. He is also a former learner of the school. He took up the responsibility of
meeting the LRC members every Tuesday morning.

4.2.4 The School Board Chairperson (SBC1)

The School Board chairperson works as a parastatal secretary. He has been serving as chairperson
of the School Board for the last six years six since he was reappointed to serve for the second term.
His daughter is a Grade 12 learner at the school.

4.2.5 Members of the School Management Team – HoDs (HoD1-HoD3)

4.2.5.1 HoD1

HoD1 has been a teacher at the school since 1982, responsible for the teaching of Biology and Life
Science. In 1995, she was appointed as a Science Head of Department.

4.2.5.2 HoD2

HoD2 has been a teacher at the school since 1986. He teaches English as a Second Language. He
was also appointed as a Head of Department for languages in 1995. He is a former learner of the
school.

56
4.2.5.3 HoD3

HoD3 has been at the school for 11years as a Head of Department for Social Science. However,
he has been in the teaching profession since 1999. He teaches History.

4.2.6 Data presentation

The data are presented under the following sub-sections:

1) A conceptual understanding of learner leadership;

2) The roles of the LRC members in the school;
3) Enabling conditions for LRC leadership development;
4) The constraints of LRC leadership development;
5) Possible suggestions from the research participants on how to strengthen the promotion of
LRC leadership development in the school.

After giving an overview of this chapter, I now explain through data presentation, how the
participants understood the concept of learner leadership.

4.3 A conceptual understanding of learner leadership

Since the focus of my study was on learner leadership, I was interested to know how the
participants understood the notion of learner leadership in their school. Drawing on the data from
the interviews and questionnaires, it was evident that most of the participants and mainly the LRC
members understood learner leadership by aligning it with learners who were in formal positions
of leading and guiding other learners. The second dominant understanding of learner leadership
was the concept of learner representation and voice and thirdly, the power to control other learners.
A participant from the School Management Team, understood the concept of learner leadership as
empowering learners. I present each of the four concepts under different headings and begin with
learner leadership as leading and guiding other learners.

57
4.3.1 Leading and guiding other learners

Drawing on both questionnaires and interviews, most of the participants from the LRC (LRC2,
LRC4, LRC5, LRC6, LRC7, LRC8, LRC9, LRC12, LRC15 & LRC19) expressed that learner
leadership referred to the learners who were leading and guiding other learners in the school. In an
interview, a participant (LRC4) exclaimed that learner leadership “is when a learner is responsible
for leading other learners from point A to point B which is a better place”. Similarly, participant
(LRC2) said “learner leadership is all about learners who are in the school and act as leaders in
the school”. Some of the participants from the LRC (LRC1, LRC3, LRC4, LRC8, LRC10 &
LRC17) saw themselves as ‘leaders’ of the fellow learners in the school; for instance, participant
(LRC8) said: “as an LRC member, learner leadership means I am a leader of others”.
Additionally, participants (LRCT1 & HoD1) also expressed that learner leadership was about
learners who were leading and guiding other learners.

Next, I present learner leadership as a representation and voice of learners in the school.

4.3.2 Learner engagement and voice

Some of the participants understood learner leadership as ways of representing learners in

decision-making in the school while for some participants, learner leadership generally meant to
represent other learners in the school and for some participants, it meant learners’ inputs and voice.

A participant from the School Board (SBC1) understood that learner leadership “is the learners
who represent the whole school in decision-making”. In the same line with a participant (SBC1),
participants (LRC4 & LRC13) echoed the same thoughts. A participant from the School
Management Team (HoD1) said they “are learners who represent other learners in the School
Board”. Nearly half of the participants from the LRC (LRC1, LRC6, LR7, LRC9, LRC10, LRC12,
LRC12, LRC15 & LRC20) expressed that learner leadership was a general representation of other
learners in a school. One participant (LRC17) however specified that “I represent them [learners]
to the principal and to the staff members”.

Apart from the concept of representation, learner leadership was also understood as the voice and
input of the learners in the school. Many of the participants who understood learner leadership as
58
the voice of the learners were mostly from the LRC (LRC3, LRC5, LRC8, LRC9, LRC11 &
LRC16). For example, a participant (LRC5) said the concept of learner leadership refers to the
learners’ voice during parents’ meetings where they give their opinions. One participant (LRC9)
said “it means to be the voice of other learners and to represent other learners and express their
feelings by taking them to the head”. A participant (LRC11) referred to themselves when stating
that “as a learner leader, I am there to be the voice of the learners and represent them”. It is worth
mentioning that, it was not only the LRC members who understood learner leadership as a means
of representation and learner voice; participants from the School Management Team (P1, HoD1 &
HoD3) and the former LRC liaison teacher (LRCT1) mentioned that the concept of learner
leadership was to do with learners’ input to manage and run the school. For example, one
participant (HoD1) said “it means learners’ input in terms of managing the school and assisting
the School Board to manage the school”.

Having presented the participants ‘understanding of the concept learner leadership as learner
engagement and voice, next I present learner leadership as the power to control others.

4.3.3 The power to control other learners.

Very few participants and only participants from the LRC (LRC3 & LRC5) demonstrated an
understanding of learner leadership equating leadership with management. In an interview, a
participant (LRC3) denoted that learner leadership was a way of controlling and ensuring that all
learners adhered to the school rules. Similarly, from a questionnaire, another participant (LRC5)
said learner leadership means “to have the power to control the learners and make sure that the
school activities are running smoothly”.

Although the concept of learner leadership was exclusively understood as leading and guiding,
representation and voice, as well as the power to control, a participant from the School
Management Team, however, had a different understanding of the concept of learner leadership as
is presented below.

59
4.3.4 Capacity-building and empowerment

A participant (P1) stated that the concept of learner leadership means “empowering the learners to
be able to make informed decisions regarding the pedagogical programmes of the school so that
they may become responsible citizens in the future”. In addition, the participant (P1) indicated that
the concept of learner leadership meant to inculcate leadership qualities in the learners.

Having presented the conceptual understanding of learner leadership, in the following section I
present the data on how learner leadership was practiced and implemented by the LRC members
in the school.

4.4 The roles of the LRC members in the school

In this section, I present the data which surfaced the roles of the LRC members in the school. In
response to the question: ‘How learner leadership was practiced and implemented by the LRC
members? the participants expressed that the LRC members had various roles of which some were
distributed among the LRC members according to the portfolios. The participants further indicated
that although the LRC roles were split according to portfolios, such as entertainment, disciplinary,
academic, School Board, sports, finance, and secretary, there were mutual roles performed by all
the members of the council. The participants pointed out that LRC members carry out too many
roles. Having read across the data sets, it became clear that the LRC members performed many
roles ranging from inside the classroom, to outside of the classroom and in the School Board body
at the school. The LRC also performed some roles beyond the school premises. Specifically, the
roles which dominated were the roles outside the classroom, the prevalent roles which I discuss
below.

4.4.1 The roles of the LRC members outside the classroom

4.4.1.1 Coordinating the morning devotions

Most of the participants, both from the School Management Team (P1, HoD1, HoD2 & HoD3),
the LRC (LRC2, LRC3, LRC4, LRC5, LRC6, LRC7, LRC9, LRC10, LRC11, LRC12, LRC13,
LRC14 & LRC18) and the former LRC liaising teacher (LRCT1), expressed that the LRC
members coordinated and directed the morning devotions and ensured that all learners came to the
60
assembly point in time. For example, a participant (LRC4) said “We conduct assembly since it is
the culture of the school; when we became LRC members we found the former LRC members doing
that and it is also our responsibility to put up the sound system”. In addition, another participant
(LRC1) affirmed that their role was to take the sound system to the assembly point because the
devotion was conducted with a sound system and the announcer needed to speak through it. On
the same note, the observation field notes (12th June - 30th July 2017) report that on every Monday
and Friday, the LRC members had to take the sound system to the assembly point and had to set it
up and after the assembly they had to take it back to the storeroom.

During the morning devotion, the LRC members had to walk around the school and check behind
the buildings and inside the classrooms, to ensure that all learners came to the assembly and queued
according to their respective classes. This was acknowledged by participants (P1, LRC5, LRC7,
LRC12, LRC13, LRC16, LRC17 & LRC19). My observation confirmed that the LRC members
were coordinating and directing the morning devotion, as well as giving announcements regarding
the activities which were taking place in the school such as cleaning campaigns, sports, and
motivational programmes. Specifically, on the 12th June 2017, I noted that the LRC head-girl gave
feedback on the LRC leadership training which they had attended, and she issued the certificates
of attendance to the LRC members. Still, on the same day, one LRC member reported on a sports
tournament which took place over the weekend at one of the schools in the region (field notes, 12th
June 2017).

Seeing the LRC members coordinating the morning devotion and making announcements to their
fellow learners and to the teachers, motivated me to probe more during my interviews with the
participants from the School Management Team (P1, HoD1, Hod2 & HoD3), as well as with the
former LRC liaison teacher (LRCT1), on what was the rationale behind the coordinating of the
morning devotion by the LRC members. Some of the responses I got were that the LRC members
were given the opportunity to conduct the morning devotion, with the idea that they are the future
leaders and they needed to be prepared in terms of building their confidence. It was also indicated
that the aim was not for the teachers to run away from their responsibilities, but the school viewed
the LRC members as leaders in the school thus, the school wanted to mould the LRC members.
Noteworthy is when the school principal (P1) said:

61
 We are doing this because we want to empower the learners. These learners are the future
leaders, through platforms such as morning assembly, we build confidence and courage so
that they can feel that they own the system and they are part and parcel of the school. We
are just importing the leadership qualities to these learners, you never know one will be a
minister, a president or a traditional leader.

Figure 4.1: The LRC coordinating the morning devotion

4.3.1.2 Organising of fundraising events and shows in the school

The LRC coordinates events and shows to raise funds for the school. This was particularly evident
across all data sets. According to the 2016-2017 LRC year plan, the LRC members proposed to
host fundraising activities such as a games day and casual wear day, Miss Tournament, Miss
Valentine, Miss Independence, talent shows and Miss and Mr. School competition. Other evidence
was a letter dated 5th February 2016 by the LRC members, addressed to the office of the school
principal requesting financial assistance (N$ 1000.00) so that the LRC members could host Miss
Valentine to raise funds for the school bus. Moreover, the LRC minutes dated 7th June 2016
discussed the hosting of Miss and Mr. School competition, while on the 15th January 2017, hosting
of Miss and Mr. School was discussed.

62
Now, drawing on questionnaires and interviews, more than half of the participants from the LRC
(LRC2, LRC3, LRC4, LRC5, LRC6, LRC10, LRC11, LRC12, LRC13, LRC17 & LRC19)
mentioned that the LRC members were mostly hosting shows to raise money for the school. For
example, a participant (LRC2) said “as an LRC member, we mostly host and run events”. Similarly,
another participant (LRC5) said “we organise shows, funny games, and tournaments”. Finally,
participant LRC13 said “we host cinema, disco, Miss and Mr. Tournament, Miss and Mr. School
and the main reason is to raise funds”.

4.3.1.3 Cleaning campaigns in the school

The LRC members coordinated the cleaning campaigns in the school. This was widely and
extensively evident across the data sets. The LRC minute’s book reports that the LRC members
planned and coordinated the cleaning campaigns. For example, the LRC meetings dated 20th
October 2015, 15th March 2016 and 2nd March 2016 discussed the cleaning campaigns. Similarly,
the 2016-2017 LRC year plan revealed that a cleaning campaign was the first activity of all the
planned activities. Now, drawing on the data from the questionnaires and interviews, most of the
participants from the LRC (LRC2, LRC3, LRC4, LRC5, LRC6, LRC7, LRC11, LRC14, LRC15
& LRC19) indicated that the LRC members ensured that the school environment looked clean by
organising and coordinating cleaning campaigns in the school. For example, one participant
(LRC11) said “we make sure that cleaning campaigns are going well just to make sure the school
is clean”.

In addition to the participants from the LRC, a participant from the SMT (P1) and the former LRC
liaison teacher (LRCT1) expressed that the LRC members organised and coordinated the cleaning
campaigns. Likewise, a participant (LRC6) said that the LRC members used to inform the fellow
learners that there was going to be a cleaning campaign. On the 12th June 2017, at the assembly
point, I observed the LRC head-boy informing fellow learners that there was going to be a cleaning
campaign on the 15th June 2017; and on the 15th June 2017, I observed the LRC members
coordinating a cleaning campaign (field notes, 12th & 15th June 2017).

63
4.3.1.4 Hostel and kitchen supervision and monitoring

The LRC minute’s book reports that the LRC members had carried out hostel and kitchen
supervision and monitoring roles. Drawing on the LRC minute’s book and I quote “LRC members
should supervise at the hostel and at the dining hall”. By the same token, the 2016-2017 LRC year
plan revealed that the LRC members together with the chief matron, hostel superintendent, LRC
liaison teacher and the kitchen staff, were expected to visit the kitchen and inspect the hygiene
conditions. Regarding the hostel supervision, drawing on interviews and questionnaires, most of
the participants (SBC1, LRC1, LRC4, LRC6, LRC7, LRC8, LRC11, LRC14, LRC16, LRC19,
LRC20 & HoD3) mentioned that LRC members supervised and monitored other learners at their
respective hostel dormitories. A common example was given by the participants from the LRC
(LRC1, LRC6, LRC4, LRC14, LRC19, & LRC20), when they indicated that LRC members kept
the hostel keys and locked up and opened the hostel dormitories when learners went and came
back from classes. Additionally, a participant (LRC4) pronounced that LRC members were not
only locking and opening the hostel dormitories, but they were also patrolling the hostel to see if
there were any learners who were perhaps feeling sick, so that they could report the matter to the
hostel superintendent. Furthermore, the LRC members maintained cleanliness in the hostel, said
some participants (LRC7, LRC8 & LRC11). A substantive evidence was reflected in one of the
LRC minutes, when the LRC members held a meeting with the hostel superintendent on the 3rd
November 2015. At that meeting, the hostel superintendent informed the LRC members that they
“should supervise at the hostel and in case there is a problem, inform the matron”.
Regarding the kitchen and dining hall, all representative research participants, the SMT (P1, HoD1,
HoD2 & HoD3) and the former LRC liaison teacher (LRCT1) expressed that the LRC members
served at the dining hall. This data was confirmed in both interviews and questionnaire responses
from most of the participants from the LRC (LRC1, LRC2, LRC4, LRC6, LRC7, LRC8, LRC9,
LRC, LRC11, LRC12, LRC14, LRC15, LRC12 & LRC20) who agreed that the LRC members
served food at the dining hall.

I was curious to get a deeper understating about the roles of the LRC members at the kitchen and
dining hall. Through probing, the following responses came to the fore from a participant from
the SMT (HoD3):

64
 Ever since I came to this school, the LRC members have been serving food to assist the
chefs to save time, because if they sit and wait for the chefs and matrons to serve then it
might take time which could be about 40 minutes; but with the assistance of the LRC
members, it only takes 15-20 minutes.

During an interview with a participant (LRC3) the above was confirmed: “It is a culture, last year
when I joined the LRC, I found the former LRC members serving at the dining hall”. In addition,
a participant (P1) explained that the LRC members were not only serving food but they also had
to monitor if learners were dressed properly, otherwise they were not allowed to enter the dining
hall to get food. In confirmation, for the two months I spent at the case study school, I observed
the LRC members together with the chefs, teachers and the hostel superintendent, serving food
and at some point, the LRC members carried pots from the kitchen to the dining hall and back, as
is evident in Figure 4.3 below (field notes, 12th June - 30th July 2017).

Figure 4.2: The LRC members carrying pots at the dining hall

65
4.3.1.5 Motivational programmes and other learner related events

Document analysis stated that motivational programmes featured on the agenda of the LRC
members. In the interviews, some participants (LRCT1, LR2, LRC3, LRC4, LRC5, LRC7 &
HOD3) held that the LRC members used to motivate their fellow learners and every so often
invited people from outside the school to come and motivate the learners. For example, one
participant (LRC2) stated that “we usually motivate learners by coming up with motivational
programmes, inviting different motivational speakers to come and motivate the learners”.
Similarly, a participant (LRC3) said “we try to motivate the learners to study especially the Grade
10 and 12 learners. We try to invite the successful formers learners to come and motivate our
fellow learners to study hard”.

From the questionnaires it was clear that almost half of the participants from the LRC (LRC1,
LRC5, LRC7, LRC8, LRC9, LRC14, LRC15, LRC17 & LRC19) mentioned that the LRC
members were the forerunners of motivational programmes in the school.

On the afternoon of 12th June 2017, I observed the LRC members leading a motivational
programme in the absence of teachers, where the former LRC head-boy who by then was studying
at one of the institutions of higher learning in Namibia, came to give a speech (field notes). From
observation fieldnote, on 23rd June 2017, I observed the LRC members coordinating the African
Child Day programme with full participation from the teachers.

Still on the roles outside the classroom, I will now discuss enforcement of the school rules and
discipline by the LRC members in the school.

4.3.1.6 Enforcement of school rules and discipline

The following data gathered from interviews and questionnaires will point to the roles of LRC
members in enforcing school rules and maintaining discipline in the school. Most of the
participants from the LRC (LRC1, LRC7, LRC8, LRC11, LRC13, LRC14, LRC16 & LRC18)
indicated that the LRC members were responsible to reinforce discipline and ensure that learners
adhered to the school rules. Participants (HoD2 & HoD3) echoed the participants from the LRC.
On the same notion, a participant from the School Board (SBC1) explained that five years back,

66
in 2012, the school encountered disciplinary problems, whereby learners used to cut a school fence
and sneak away from the school. The LRC members challenged the learners’ wrong practices by
introducing a rule, that whenever a learner was seen or found standing next to the school fence,
they would have to buy 50 meters of net wire. By the same token, other participants (LRCT1 &
HoD2) indicated that the school used to experience many cases of vandalism by the learners, but
the LRC members helped to mitigate those cases. Still on discipline, more evidence was given by
a participant from the LRC (LRC9) who specifically pointed out that “the Grade 9 and 10 learners
were the problems at this school, lots of them were misbehaving and we decided to talk to them
and now they are behaving well”. To conclude on the discipline role of the LRC, participants
(LRC7, LRC8 & LRC11) indicated that the LRC members also ensured that the school uniform
was worn properly and accordingly.
The last part of the data focusing on the extensive outside roles of the LRC, will focus on liaising
and mediating with the teachers, School Management Team, hostel superintendent, chief matron
and the LRC liaison teacher in the school.

4.3.1.7 Liaising and mediating

LRC members linked fellow learners with other activity systems in the school. All the data
instruments I employed revealed that the LRC members carried out an outstanding role of bridging
the learners with teachers, school management, hostel and kitchen staff in the school. Quoting
from the 2016-2017 LRC year plan, “the LRC members should connect the learners with teachers
and the principal”. Likewise, the data from the LRC minute’s book, reports that the LRC members
hold meetings with fellow learners to hear their concerns and complaints and channelled them to
the relevant people. Practical evidence was several meetings held by the LRC members with the
chief matron, in which they discussed the complaints and grievances of the learners with regards
to the unhygienic conditions of the kitchen and dining hall. This notion was supported by the data
from the questionnaire, whereby a participant (LRC5) said “DH/kitchen there is poor hygiene, so
we tried that when the cooks are serving food, they should wear gloves, because some of them
don’t even wash their hands before handling the food”.

Still, on the notion of liaising and mediating by the LRC members, the LRC minute’s book reveals
that on 5th November 2017, the LRC members held a meeting with the hostel superintendent in

67
which DSTV and watching of the news by learners were contemplated. In confirmation, I have
seen the learners watching the 8 o’clock news in the school hall. Additionally, I saw and noted the
LRC members telling the principal that their fellow learners were not happy with the point that
they were expected to pay NS 50. 00 for the school to operate effectively, as it was a no-paying
school.

A further remarkable finding, from the LRC minute’s book, was on the joint meetings being
organised by the LRC members held with the learners, teachers and the principal. At one of these
joint meetings, learners complained about teachers who were not serious about their teaching and
that the Grade 12 learners were not given tests to see if they were mastering their subjects, to
prepare them for examinations. In the same meeting, learners requested to be allowed to go to
church on Sundays.

Equally, data from questionnaires and interviews revealed that the LRC members acted as
mediators in the school, for example in an interview, a participant from the LRC (LRC1) said “we
act as mediators, whatever the fellow learners tell us to go and tell the principal, we take it straight
to him”. Most of the participants from the LRC (LRC3, LRC4, LRC5, LRC7 LRC11, LRC9,
LRC12, LRC14, LRC17, LRC18 & LRC20) pronounced that the LRC members always listened
to the complaints of fellow learners and took them up with the teachers and the principal. For
example, a participant (LRC7) said “we took the learners’ complaints to the teaching staff that
teachers must finish the syllabus on time”. The interviews with participants from the SMT (P1 &
HoD1), as well a participant from the School Board (SBC1) also expressed that the complaints
from the learners were channelled through the LRC members.

Regardless of the LRC’s extensive roles outside the classroom, they were also engaged in roles
inside the classroom. This will be addressed in the following section.

4.3.2 The inside classroom roles

The LRC members had to make sure that classrooms were clean and in order. The LRC
development year plan for the 2016-2017 academic year, outlined that the LRC members were to
ensure that the classrooms were clean. The following quote from the LRC minute’s book illustrated

68
the roles of the LRC member inside the classroom: “The LRC members should check if learners
are given enough activities because the core duty of a learner is to learn. When teachers are not
attending the lessons, you have the right to go and call them”.

In the interviews, it became clear that the LRC members had some roles inside the classroom. For
example, some respondents (P1, SBC1, HoD1, HoD3, LRCT1, LRC1, LRC3, LRC4, LRC6 &
LRC7) mentioned that some of the inside classroom roles included: classroom supervision that
includes the afternoon and evening study sessions, class discipline and writing down the names of
the teachers who did not attend their lessons. For example, in an interview with the School Board
Chairperson (SBC1), it was clear that the LRC members are there “to see to it that teachers are
attending to their lesson, if they are coming on time and if they give work”. Equally, a participant
(HoD3) highlighted that the LRC members “are located classrooms to control and report the
teachers who did not attend their lessons and to keep their classrooms silent”. Similarly, from the
findings from questionnaires, the majority of the LRC members (LRC1, LRC2, LRC3, LRC4,
LRC5, LRC7, LRC9, LRC11, LRC12, LRC13, LRC14, LRC15, LRC16, LRC17& LRC20)
echoed that the LRC members maintained cleanliness and discipline in the classrooms.
Additionally, participants (LRC2 & LRC4) said that teachers were entrusting LRC members to
invigilate the tests and class activities on their behalf. Lastly, on the roles inside the classroom, I
observed how the LRC members kept order and discipline in the classrooms, more especially
during the afternoon and evening study sessions (fieldnote, 12th June - 30th July 2017).

Having presented the roles which the LRC members performed inside the classroom, now I move
on to present the roles which the LRC members performed in other leadership bodies in the school.

4.4.2 On the School Board

Almost all the participants from the LRC (LRC1, LRC2, LRC3, LRC5, LRC6, LRC7, LRC8,
LRC9, LRC10, LRC11, LRC12, LRC13, LRC14, LRC15, LRC16, LRC17, LRC19, & LRC20)
expressed that among the LRC members, there were two LRC members who served on the School
Board, which was the highest decision-making body at the school. During an interview with the
two LRC School Board members, they confidently stated that they were part of the School Board

69
and used to sit together with other School Board members and deliberate on aspects and issues of
whole school development. A participant (LRC5) proudly said:

As a School Board member, I always attend the School Board and parents’ meetings. We
usually sit together with fellow School Board members and they tell us to be free to give
our points. If my fellow learners tell me what they want and what they feel should be done,
I go and discuss it with the fellow School Board members and see what we can do as School
Board members.

Relatedly, a participant from the SMT (HoD1) emphasised that “the LRC members should
participate in all the discussions which are being discussed by the School Board, their voices also
need to be heard”.
Regarding the participation of the LRC members on the School Board, a participant from the
School Board (SBC1) said:
The LRC members work together with us as the School Board members. The only difference
is age, but when it comes to contributing, they contribute equally but they mostly contribute
on learner related issues and the school budgets. They always contribute to the issues that
really touch them, for example, the school uniform, school discipline, teaching and
learning and the hair, but they are not free to discuss teachers’ disciplinary matters.

In an interview with a participant (P1) from the SMT, the above statement of the School Board
(SBC1) member was confirmed – two LRC members represented learners on the School Board,
so that their voices could be heard, and their interests could be considered. The principal remarked
on some of the visible changes initiated by learners through learners who represented them on the
School Board, such as the buying of the school sound system and LRC t-shirts.

Substantive evidence from the minutes of the School Board, showed that the LRC members were
involved in the School Board. The names of the LRC members who served on the School Board
appear on the minutes of the School Board dated 26th September 2016, 10th January 2017 and 29th
June 2017, just to mention a few. When I read the School Board’s minutes, I noted that the LRC
members raised their issues during the meetings. For example, quoting from the minutes dated 10th
January 2017, the LRC member “informed the house that [other] learners used to report to them
how learner x used to intimidate them, and she has a concern that if learner x happens to come
back to school, it might disturb the academic life of the fellow learners”. Unfortunately, I was not
allowed to attend the School Board meetings where I could have observed the real-life experience

70
reference to the LRC members’ participation. I had seen the two LRC School Board members
giving feedback at the morning assembly, regarding the School Board meeting that had taken place.
Nevertheless, I managed to attend a parents’ meeting which was held on 15th July 2017. During
the meeting, I noted the presence of the two LRC members. I noticed the school principal
acknowledged the presence of the two LRC members in the meeting and requested them to stand
up so that the parents could see them (fieldnote, 15th July 2017).

Figure 4.3: Two LRC School Board members attending the school parents’ meeting

The following section will address the roles which the LRC members performed outside the school
premises.

4.4.3 Outside the school premises

The LRC roles were not only bounded to inside the school, but went beyond the school boundaries.
Documents reported that the LRC members visited a primary school to motivate the learners. The
LRC year plan for 2016-2017 academic year, revealed that the LRC members planned to visit the
media so that they could give motivational speeches to all learners’ country-wide. In addition to
the outside school roles, I also observed the LRC members attending a memorial service of a
school patron. During the service, the LRC members directed people to take their seats and served
them food and drinks. The LRC head-girl read a message of condolence on behalf of the fellow
71
learners. Since the funeral took place in Windhoek, the LRC members went to Windhoek, however,
I did not manage to go with and observe them.

Having presented the wide-ranging roles of the LRC members, I will now move on to the next
section, to present the enabling conditions for leadership development of LRC members in the
school.

4.5 Enabling conditions for LRC leadership development

In this study, my interest was on learner leadership development, particularly within the LRC.
Therefore, I felt it was important to inquire about the conditions which nurtured the leadership
development of the LRC members.

The enabling conditions for LRC leadership development emerged from the data. The notion of
leadership training emerged as a strong theme. The data further established that the School
Management Team were vastly supportive of LRC leadership development and the school
principal was most used as an example. The support from the LRC liaison teacher and networking
of the LRC members with other schools, were reasonably expressed.

In the following section, I will address the leadership training programme for the LRC members.

4.5.1 Leadership training for the LRC members

The data from documents, interviews, and questionnaires showed that the LRC members were
trained on leadership. The 2016-2017 LRC year plan revealed that leadership training was one of
the planned activities to be implemented. The LRC file reported that two LRC leadership training
courses were conducted outside the school. According to a report, on 27th February - 2nd March
2017, four LRC members (head boy, head-girl & their deputies) attended leadership training which
was organised by the African Leadership Institute (ALI). The training covered aspects such as
teamwork, own identity, roles of the LRC members and integrity and accountability.

The LRC minute’s book revealed that on the 14th March 2017, the LRC members (head-boy, head-
girl & their deputies) gave feedback to fellow LRC members on what they were trained on.
72
Relatedly, a second report revealed that the school collaborated with another school and organised
a two-day leadership training that took place on 9th - 11th June 2017, at one of the local training
centres. Likewise, in the questionnaires and interviews, most of the participants both from the SMT
(P1, HoD1, HoD2 & HoD), School Board (SBC1), former LRC liaison teacher (LRCT1) and all
the participants from the LRC (LRC1-LRC20) mentioned that LRC members were trained on
leadership. In an interview, probing on what the LRC members learned from the leadership
training, a participant (LRC1) responded that “training is helpful because they are training us to
become future leaders. I acquired different skills on how to work with people”. Another participant
(LRC4) said “We were trained in different ways on how to work in a group, how to be in front of
people, conduct speeches and how to work with different people and how to save time. Through
this training we gained many qualities and experience when it comes to leading others”. Regarding
the joint leadership training with another school, a participant (LRC3) said “we learnt a lot from
each other”.

I was keen to know the reasons why the school sent the LRC members for leadership training.
During an interview with participants from the SMT (P1) it came to the fore that “LRC leadership
training is important since the LRC members get to be exposed and taken into leadership at an
advanced level and when they come back to school, they bring new skills and experiences which
are needed for the upliftment and development of the school”. A participant from the School Board
(SBC1) also said that “when LRC members are elected, they are always trained about their roles
and responsibilities otherwise what are they going to do when they are not trained”.

To confirm the above, on the 12th June 2017, during the morning devotion, I observed the LRC
head-girl giving feedback on the leadership training they attended on the 09th - 11th June 2017. On
the same note, the LRC members were also awarded certificates (fieldnote, 12th June 2017).

To supplement the leadership training, the School Management Team were also supportive in
enhancing the leadership development of the LRC members in the school.

In the next section I present the support of the School Management Team.

73
4.5.2 Support from the School Management Team

In the questionnaire, all the participants from the LRC (LRC1-LRC20) expressed that the LRC
members were supported by the SMT. For example, a participant (LRC2) said “the school
principal and heads of departments call us for meetings and encourage us to co-operate with a
committee”. The LRC minute’s book confirmed that there were several meetings held between the
SMT and the LRC members. To point out one of the meetings, on the 11th October 2016, the SMT
encouraged the LRC members to be strong leaders in the school, to ignore bad words from their
fellow learners and not to be afraid of the teachers. Additionally, a participant from the LRC
(LRC4) said “The School Management Team help us to achieve our objectives, e.g. the HoD helps
us to use his USB when we are conducting morning devotion”. Furthermore, one participant
(LRC9) said “The principal and heads of departments take our problems and whenever something
cannot be done, they give us reasons”. Similarly, a participant from the SMT (HoD1) indicated
that whenever the LRC member wanted to do something they always shared it with the SMT for
approval purposes. The minutes of the SMT, dated 20th October 2016, indicated that the SMT held
a meeting to discuss the LRC development plan which was comprised of 31 items which duly
needed approval of the SMT for implementation. According to the LRC minutes dated 22nd
October 2016, a joint meeting was held between the LRC members and the SMT and the LRC
members were given feedback about the activities they wanted to carry out. The 2016-2017 LRC
year plan shows that all the 31 proposed activities were approved by the SMT.

Regarding the principal being specifically pointed out from the SMT, the data revealed that on
Tuesdays, the LRC members had meetings with the principal. Drawing on interviews and
questionnaires, most of the participants from the LRC (LRC1, LRC2, LRC5, LRC6, LRC7, LRC8,
LRC10, LRC11, LRC12, LRC13, LRC 16, LRC17, LRC18, LRC19 & LRC20) indicated that, on
Tuesdays, the LRC members attended the meetings in the office of the principal. In support of the
principal’s meetings, a participant (LRC1) stated that “without the principal, none of our tasks
would have been carried out. We feel valued by the principal”. Equally, one participant (LRC8)
said “Every Tuesday morning at 07H00 up to 07H30, we attend a meeting with the principal. He
always tells things we are doing well and what we need to improve on”. In addition, participants
(LRC2, LRC3, LRC11, LRC12 & LRC13) mentioned that during Tuesday meetings, the LRC
members discussed their problems with the principal.
74
In the interviews with the participants from the SMT (P1& HoD3) it was also stated that the
principal used to have meetings with the LRC members every Tuesday. According to the principal,
he initiated the Tuesday meetings five years back because that is what he used to do at his former
school. The idea was just to engage the LRC members and to get advice from them on how to run
the school. Regarding my observations, I also attended the Tuesday meetings and I observed that
the principal was encouraging and motivating the LRC members to diligently carry out their roles.
Most of the times, the principal asked the LRC members if they had something to share and if
things were going well in the school. On the 27th June 2017, I noted the principal disclosing to the
LRC members that the school was in a financial crisis since there was only N$ 2000. 00 in the
school account. One of the LRC members suggested that perhaps the learners could be asked to
pay a certain amount of money (fieldnote, 12th June - 30th July 2017).

In the next section, I address the support offered to the LRC members by the LRC liaison teacher.

4.5.3 Support from the LRC liaison teacher

LRC members were supported by their liaison teacher. The data emerging from documents (LRC
minutes), questionnaires and interviews, evidently showed that the school allocated a teacher to
guide the LRC members to carry out their roles in the school. The LRC minutes revealed that the
LRC liaison teacher held several meetings with the LRC members and reminded them of their
roles. The minutes further reported that the LRC liaison teacher accompanied the LRC members
for leadership training. In the questionnaires, relatively few participants from the LRC (LRC2,
LRC3, LRC4, LRC8, LRC10, LRC11 & LRC18) mentioned that the LRC liaison teacher
supported the LRC members. For example, a participant (LRC3) referred to the LRC liaison
teacher as their mother. In appreciation, one participant (LRC4) said “We thank our teacher
coordinator because she is always there for us and when we discuss something, she considers it,
for example, we gave her our ideas of the t-shirts and she helped and now we have our t-shirts”.
Regarding guidance, a participant (LRC10) said “our teacher coordinator gives us guidelines and
motivates us to do our work better”.

75
From the interviews, very few participants from the LRC (LRC3, LRC4 & LRC7) affirmed that
the LRC members received support from the LRC liaison teacher. Relatedly, in the interviews,
participants from the SMT (HoD2 & HoD3) expressed the same thoughts. For example, a
participant (HoD3) said “the LRC teacher coordinates the activities of the LRC and draws up the
rules for the LRC and takes the LRC members for orientation”. It was evident from the pictures
that the LRC liaison teacher accompanied the LRC members for leadership training. Moreover,
the former LRC liaison teacher (LRCT1) indicated that his role was to meet with the LRC members
once a month, to hear their problems and advise them – if they needed something, they would go
to him first.

Figure 4.4: The LRC members in their t-shirts that they got with the assistance of their LRC
liaison teacher

Still on the enabling conditions for LRC leadership development, I now move on to present how
the LRC members benefited from a partnership they had with LRC members from other schools.

76
4.5.4 Networking with other secondary schools

The LRC members visited other schools to learn new leadership practices. The data from the
questionnaires specifically participants (LRC2, LRC5, LRC6, LRC15, LRC18 & LRC19),
indicated that the LRC members visited the performing schools. For example, one participant
(LRC19) said “the school organised trips for us to visit the performing schools”. Additionally, in
an interview, a participant from the LRC (LRC5) said “we usually visit the performing schools to
learn the techniques they use and how are their study sessions and we come back to give feedback
to our fellow learners so that they can improve”. Likewise, a participant from the SMT (HoD2)
said that” when visiting schools, they observe the lessons, dining hall and so forth, they come back
and apply what they have seen”. In confirmation, the 2016-2017-year planner reports that “the
purpose of visiting the performing schools is to investigate and learn the different practices”. In a
letter dated 4th February 2016, the LRC members requested permission to be allowed to visit one
of the top performing schools in the region. The letter states that:

Your school has been ranked nationally and regionally as one of the top performing schools
in the country. We, therefore would like to visit your school to share views on leadership
and school management to improve our academic performance. We again request you to
allow as to interact with the LRC members and learners in general. We would like also to
attend classes that day.

I now move on to the section which presents the constraining conditions for LRC leadership
development in the school.

4.6 The constraints of LRC leadership development

As I said earlier, the purpose of my study was to understand how learner leadership was developed
particularly in the LRC. Through administered questionnaires, interviews and relative analysis of
documents, I managed to combine the factors which hindered and constrained leadership
development of LRC members in the school. Lack of discipline among the learners, emerged as
the strongest theme. Equally, lack of respect and collaboration with teachers was another strong
theme that emerged. The data further revealed that conflict and communication barriers among the
LRC members partially constrained their leadership development. Furthermore, it emerged that

77
the LRC members were overloaded with work. It was also noted that there was a lack of proper
facilities for the LRC members.

To begin with, I present the lack of discipline among the learners in the school.

4.6.1 Lack of respect among the learners

Drawing on the questionnaires and interviews, all the participants from the LRC (LRC1-LRC20)
mentioned that fellow learners lacked respect for LRC members. The data revealed that learners
did not like taking instructions from the LRC members and they used to shout, name-call and insult
the LRC members. Equally, drawing from interviews, all the participants from the LRC (LRC1-
LRC20) expressed that fellow learners lacked respect for the LRC members. In addition, the
former LRC liaison teacher (LRCT1) echoed the same sentiment as all the participants from the
LRC. For example, most participants (LRC1, LRC2, LRC4, LRC6, LRC7, LRC8, LRC10, RLC11,
LRC12, LRC13, LRC14, LRC17, LRC19 & LRC20) expressed that learners did not follow the
instructions of the LRC members, especially when they were called for morning devotion. A
participant (LRC1) said “fellow learners don’t obey what we tell them, and they don’t listen. They
often ignore us and shout bad words”. Similarly, another participant (LRC2) said “when we call
them for assembly, fellow learners end up insulting the LRC members and sometimes want to
fight”. A participant (LRC6) also noted that “when you tell them to get to the assembly point, they
will always misbehave. They will always say you are also not there and you want us to go there”.
Equally, a participant (LRC8) acknowledged that “they throw out bad words like “who are you to
tell us that? You are also a learner like us”. Another participant (LRC20) also stated that “when
you tell your fellow learners to move to the assembly point, they insult you and tell you to go first
then they will join you”.

It was also stated that the learners insulted LRC members when they instructed them to tuck in
their shirts. According to a participant (LRC6), “Learners always insult you when you tell them to
tuck in, they will always say you are not the one who brought them to school”. Similarly, a
participant (LRC8) agreed that “when you tell a learner to tuck in he/she will tell you that they are
not from your house and you are just a learner like us, so we cannot be led by you”. On the same
notion, another participant (LRC11) stated that “telling a fellow learner to tuck in is very difficult

78
because a person will look at you and be like, is that what your parents send you to come and do
at school”?

A participant (LRC1) said that during the motivational meetings, learners do not like to listen, and
the boys preferred to sit at the back and make a lot of noise and shout at the LRC members.
Likewise, another participant (LRC9) indicated that learners did not listen to their motivational
speeches and they thought it was useless. On the 12th June 2017, during a motivational speech
programme, I observed how the learners were making a noise and did not want to listen. The LRC
members kept on saying “guys keep quiet and listen”.

According to participants (LRC2, LRC7, LRC11, LRC13, LRC14 & LRC17), there was often
conflict between learners and fights with other learners during evening events at the school. For
example, a participant (LRC2) said “We hosted a show where two learners fought, and one was
stabbed with a knife and we had to call in the police officers”. Another participant (LRC11) said
“our shows usually start from 18H00 to 19H00 but due to a lot of conflicts and fights among the
learners, it was changed to 14H00”. In the same vein, another participant (LRC13) indicated that
learners “liked to disrupt events and if you responded you can even be beaten up”. Relatedly a
participant (LRC7) indicated that learners wanted to fight with LRC members so that they could
be removed from the LRC. Additionally, the 2016-2017 LRC year plan indicated that the police
officers were needed to keep order during the LRC’s fundraising events at the school.

One of the reasons for learners’ disrespect of LRC members, was the age of the LRC members.
Some of the participants (LRC2, LRC7, LRC14, & LRC17 & LRCT1) voiced that some learners
disrespected LRC members as some of the LRC members were younger than some learners in the
school. For example, a participant (LRC9) said “Sometimes you are telling the learners to do
something, but they will not do it because they think we are the same age and some are even older
than us and they don’t want to be directed by people of their own age”. Similarly, another
participant (LRC14) said “some learners don’t like to be told to obey the school rules by the LRC
members just because we are of the same age”. Additionally, the former LRC liaison teacher,
participant (LRCT1) said “some learners don’t want to listen to the LRC members because some
of the LRC members are young, so the older learners don’t want to respect them”.

79
Lastly, some participants (LRC5, LRC10, LRC11, LRC12, LRC 14 & LRC15) indicated that
learners did not respect the LRC members because of the special treatment bestowed on them. For
example, one participant (LRC9) stated that learners were not happy with the fact that the LRC
members had T-shirts while they, the learners, did not have. A participant (LRC11) said “learners
are insulting us because they think we get special treatment”. An example was given by a
participant (LRC12) when he stated that “some learners don’t respect us, and they throw out bad
words such as wearing white shirts for nothing, which is discouraging sometimes”. Lastly, a
participant (LRC14) said “some learners usually say when you become an LRC member, your job
is just to eat a lot and travel to different places”.

Next, I present how teachers constrained LRC leadership development in the school.

4.6.2 Lack of respect and collaboration by teachers

Data emerging from the participants on the LRC, SMT, and School Board members showed that
teachers lacked respect and were apathetic about the activities of the LRC members in the school.
Many of the participants from the LRC (LRC2-LRC7, LRC9, LRC11, LRC12, LRC15, LRC16,
LRC19 & LRC20) mentioned that teachers used to insult and shout at LRC members. They also
indicated that most of the teachers were not participating in LRC activities. For example, a
participant (LRC19) said “I was called bad words by a teacher and I really felt bad. I almost
committed suicide”. Another participant (LRC4) said “some teachers look at us as if we are useless
people in the school”. Participants (LRC7& LRC8) also indicated that teachers were not valuing
the LRC members as leaders. Similarly, a participant (LRC9) said “some teachers are rude and if
you go to them with a problem, they will turn you back or may say a bad word”. Furthermore,
another participant (LRC 4) said “teachers think we are wasting our time for studying”. A few
participants (LRC1, LRC5, LRC12 & LRC16) expressed that teachers were not participating in
different activities initiated by LRC members in the school. Agreeing, a participant (LRC20) stated
that teachers were always against the ideas of the LRC members.
According to a participant from the SMT (P1) “teachers are not cooperating well with the LRC
members, yet they feel that the LRC members should not be valued and they think that I gossip
with them during our Tuesday meetings”. Correspondingly, a participant (LRC11) noted that

80
“teachers think we report them to the principal and when we are in class, they always throw bad
words to us. If one of the LRC members fail a test, teachers always say that you are forever running
with the LRC issues”. In contrast, a participant (LRC3) stated that “during our Tuesday meetings,
we discuss teachers who beat learners and insults learners”. Additionally, a member of the SMT
(SBC1) stated that “some teachers think the LRC members are too much on them”.

In the next section, I present the differences and tension among LRC members.

4.6.3 Differences and tension among LRC members

In the questionnaires, all the participants from the LRC (LRC1-LRC20) indicated that there were
differences and tension among the LRC members. In the interviews, a few participants (LRC3 &
LRC6) affirmed the same. For example, participants (LRC2, LRC6, LRC7, LRC8, LRC11,
LRC13, LRC14, LRC15, LRC16, LRC17, LRC19 &LRC20) stated that during meetings, the LRC
members used to have different opinions, thus, they sometimes did not agree with one another.
For example, a participant (LRC20) said “we don’t listen to each other, so it takes us a lot of time
to make final decisions as a group, because everyone always has a different idea, therefore it is
never easy to find a conclusion”. Regarding the disagreements, a participant (LRC8) gave an
example by stating that “when we wanted to attend the memorial service of our school patron, it
was difficult because not all the ladies wanted to put on skirts”. I observed how the LRC members
disagreed on what to wear when they attended the memorial service of the late school patron. Some
LRC members wanted to wear a white shirt while some wanted to wear their LRC T-shirts
(fieldnote, 16th June 2017).

Participants (LRC5 &LRC7) mentioned that some of the LRC members were not attending LRC
meetings. For example, a participant (LRC7) said “we usually experienced a quorum and we
cannot make a decision when half of the committee members do not attend a meeting”. Moreover,
the LRC minute’s book reported that many LRC members were absent from meetings.
Additionally, a participant (LRC5) said “we don’t like to work together, some may even run away
and when you call them, they will even insult you”. She further stated that some LRC members had
personal issues and were not talking to each other. Correspondingly, participants (LRC3, LRC6

81
&11) expressed that during events, some of the LRC members pretended to be sick simply because
they did not want to work.

4.6.4 Overload of tasks on LRC members

All sets of data, document analysis, questionnaires, interviews and observation, revealed that the
LRC members carried out too many roles and resulted in the LRC members being overloaded and
overwhelmed with tasks. A 2016-2017 LRC year plan showed that there were 31 items to be
implemented by the LRC members. Drawing on the questionnaires, a few participants (LRC3,
LRC5, LRC14, LRC17, LRC18, LRC20) complained that the LRC members were overloaded
with many tasks which consumed much of their study time. For example, a participant (LRC5)
said “we are always busy with the LRCs activities and we don’t get time to study”. Another
participant (LRC14) confirmed this by saying “We have lots of responsibilities and we don’t get
enough time to study and this affects our performance and our parents always complain when we
fail”. In an interview, a participant from the LRC (LRC6) said “even if I want to relax, I just don’t
get time”. A few participants from the SMT (P1& HoD2) echoed that the LRC members had a lot
of tasks which curtailed their study time. For example, a participant (P1) said “The LRC members
don’t get time to concentrate on their studies because sometimes they are in the meetings while
other learners are studying, and you find that during weekends they are given activities to
organise”. Similarly, a participant from the School Board (SBC1) said that “the LRC members
don’t attend to their school work 100% because of many roles and responsibilities and meetings.
Parents did not send their children to school to become LRC members, they send them to come
and study”. From the fieldnote (16th June 2017) I observed the LRC members complaining when
they were told to go and serve at the memorial service of the late school patron.

4.6.5 Lack of facilities for LRC members

The data from questionnaires, interviews, and observations revealed that the LRC members had
no room where they could meet and discuss their issues. Drawing on the questionnaires,
participants (LRC2, LRC8, LRC10, LRC11, LRC12, LRC14, LRC15 & LR17) mentioned that
there was no designated room for LRC members. For example, a participant (LRC2) said “we
don’t have a LRC room/building where we can meet and share our opinions”. Another participant
(LRC 8) stated that “we need our own LRC office”. Similarly, during an interview, a participant

82
from the SMT (P1) said “sometimes you want to give some privileges to these LRC members, for
example, giving them a room, but we find it very difficult because they are just learners”. In
addition, the LRC 2016-2017 year plan reported that the LRC members wanted an office. My
observations also confirmed that there was not a room specifically for LRC members. I only saw
them meeting in the office of the principal on Tuesdays (Fieldnote, 12th June - 30 July 2017). In
the following section, I present the possible suggestions from the research participants.

4.7 Possible suggestions on how to strengthen the promotion of LRC

leadership development in the school
4.7.1 Collaboration and respect from teachers

The LRC members wanted to work together with the teachers. Drawing on the questionnaires and
interviews, most of the participants from the LRC (LRC1, LRC2, LRC3, LRC4, LRC5, LRC6,
LRC7, LRC8, LRC9, LRC11, LRC12, LRC16, LRC17 & LRC20) suggested that the teachers
should show interest in the activities of the LRC members by working together with them and
show them a sense of value and respect. For example, a participant (LRC2) said “we need to work
together with teachers because leadership is all about interacting and respecting each other”.
Participants (LRC7, LRC8, LRC12 & LRC16) suggested that teachers should consider the LRC
members as leaders and must try to help them. Finally, a participant (LRC19) said “teachers should
stop insulting LRC members”.

4.7.2 Educate the learners on the importance of LRC members

Learners needed an understanding of the roles and importance of LRC members in the school. In
the questionnaires and interviews, most of the participants from the LRC (LRC2, LRC3, LR5,
LRC7, LRC8, LRC9, LRC11, LRC12, LRC14, LR6, LRC17 & LRC20) suggested that there was
a need for the learners to be well-informed about the roles of LRC members in the school. For
example, a participant (LRC2) said “the first thing to be done is to inform the learners about the
roles of the LRC members in the school’. Another participant (LRC5) said “learners should be told
about the importance of the LRC members in the school”. Similarly, a participant (LRC11) said
“the principal and teachers should make learners understand that the LRC members are the voice
of the learners”.

83
4.7.3 Leadership and communication skills training

There was a need for more leadership and communication training for LRC members. More than
half of the participants from the LRC (LRC3, LRC4, LRC5, LRC6, LRC7, LRC9, LRC10, LRC14,
LRC18 & LRC20) suggested that more leadership and communication training was required, so
that the LRC members could learn leadership skills and learn how to talk and respect the opinions
of others. For example, a participant (LRC3) said “leadership training should be arranged for us
so that we get to be educated on how to communicate with one another”. Likewise, a participant
(LRC11) said “we need more leadership training just to improve our leadership skills”.

4.7.4 Code of conduct for LRC members

A few LRC participants (LRC4, LRC7, LRC15, LRC17 & LRC18) indicated in the questionnaires
that that there was a need for a LRC code of conduct. They suggested that clear rules and
regulations needed to be developed. For example, a participant (LRC7) said “we need to put up
order and regulations in the council”. Furthermore, participants (LRC14, LRC15 & LRC18)
suggested that a rigid time-table and timing of the LRC meetings needed to be developed, so that
the LRC activities did not prevent the LRC members from studying.

4.8 Conclusion
In this chapter, I presented how learner leadership was understood by the participants in the case
study school. I also presented what the LRC members were doing in and beyond the school. I
further presented the conditions which enabled and constrained LRC leadership development.
Finally, I presented the possible suggestions which could strengthen the promotion of LRC
leadership development in the school. In the next chapter, I discuss the findings in light with the
literature and theory.

84
 CHAPTER FIVE
DATA DISCUSSION

5.1 Introduction
In this chapter, I attempt to make sense of the data which I presented in Chapter Four. I now discuss
the main findings in line with my research goals and questions, and the literature.

To remind the reader, the aim of my study was to gain insight into how learner leadership was
understood and practiced in the school, particularly within the Learner Representative Council.
This study was not studied in isolation from its context: it therefore unearthed the retrospective
cultural-historical forces enabling or constraining LRC leadership development. And lastly, the
study surfaced the possible ways on how LRC leadership could be strengthened and promoted in
the school.

The study has been driven by the following research questions:

1. What is the current understanding of learner leadership in the school?

2. How is learner leadership practiced and implemented by the LRC members in the school?

3. What are the conditions that promoted and/or constrained the Learner Representative
Council’s leadership development in the school?

4. What needs to be done to strengthen the promotion of the Learner Representative Council’s
leadership development in the school?

In this chapter, the themes emerged from the data are discussed in the following order: A
conceptual understanding of learner leadership, the practice of LRC leadership in terms of zones
as emerged and framed from the data, the enabling conditions for LRC leadership, the surfaced
systemic contradictions (secondary) and challenges faced by LRC members and lastly, what are
the possible ways that LRC leadership can be enhanced in the school as suggested by the research
participants. I now move on to the discussion.

85
5.2 A conceptual understanding of learner leadership in the school
5.2.1 Learner leadership as formal leadership positions

As presented in the previous chapter (see Section 4.1.1) the data revealed that the concept of learner
leadership was associated with formal leadership positions, particularly for the learners who served
on the Learner Representative Council in the school. The participants’ understanding is in line with
Harris and Lambert (2003) who argue that “leadership in schools still tends to equate with position,
or authority, you have to be a recognised leader within the organisation” (p. 3). The LRC members
saw themselves as leaders because of their formal position of leading and guiding other learners
in the school. In terms of leadership theories, this implies that the concept of learner leadership
was understood from a traditional perspective which puts faith and pride in the person in a
leadership position. Most of the literature on leadership (Spillane et al., 2004; Woods, 2005;
Spillane, 2006; Gronn, 2008; Harris & Townsend, 2007; Hall et al., 2013) indicates that traditional
forms of leadership attach leadership chiefly to those in formal leadership positions, where
leadership is only believed to be practiced and exercised by a single individual, whom Timperley
(2005) and Gronn (2008) refer to as heroic leaders. While the concept of learner leadership was
understood from a formal leadership point of view, Woods (2005) however argues that formal
leadership positions are too hierarchical and put too much dependence and reliance on a dominant
leader. In this study, this suggested that the LRC members were the only learners with the potential
to lead and guide other learners in the school and this is what Gronn (2000) describes as “leader-
follower and leadership-followership” (p. 318).

In contrast to traditional views of leadership which sees leadership practiced solely within formal
leadership positions, distributed leadership theory however argues that leadership practice is more
than an individual’s position. This literally means that leadership does not have ownership, it does
not reside within any individual (Spillane, 2006). Harris (2004) argues that distributed leadership
“concentrates on engaging expertise wherever it exists within the organisation rather than seeking
this only through formal position or role” (p. 13). This is in line with Gronn (2000) who best puts
it that “leadership is not something that can be done to others, but is rather an emergent property”
(p. 324). A distributed perspective sees leadership as a social relation which involves the
“interaction of leaders, followers and their situation in the execution of tasks” (Spillane et al., 2004,

86
p. 10). To contextualise this notion of distributed leadership to my research findings, my
respondents did not appear to have any understanding of distributed leadership and this naturally
meant that there was no reciprocal interdependencies between LRC members and their fellow
learners whom they led and guided in the school. If the participants understood a notion of
distributed leadership, they would not have defined the concept of learner leadership from a
hierarchical leadership perspective. They would have incorporated the elements of distributed
leadership in their definitions. According to Spillane (2006), leadership is a system of interactions
whereby a leader influences and in turn is influenced by the followers. This suggests that the LRC
members can influence and be influenced by fellow learners in the school. Through interaction,
the LRC members and the learners would share skills and knowledge, because everyone would
apply useful and/or different skills and knowledge to situations (Spillane et al., 2004). This is what
Harris and Lambert (2003) term a “reciprocal and dynamic relationship” (p. xvii).

Additionally, the findings suggest that learner leadership was perceived to exist only in the LRC,
the legal leadership body for the learners in the school. However, literature argues that learner
leadership is more than the Learner Representative Council. Whitehead (2009) and Grant (2015)
argue that learner leadership can also be expanded in the school through the establishment of
learner leadership clubs, which can form part of the extra-curricular activities in the school. Grant
(2015) reviewed two larger research projects conducted by the Bachelor of Education Honours
(ELM) students, whereby they explored learner leadership in schools in South Africa and Namibia.
The findings revealed that learner leadership clubs have a potential to develop leadership among
all the learners across the school. In conclusion, this would mean that learner leadership can not
only be equated or resonate with LRC members who hold informal positions of leading other
learners in the school; learner leadership can also mean other forms of leadership in the school. I
however acknowledge the understanding of the participants, because that it is how learner
leadership was experienced and practiced in the school.

87
5.2.2 Learner leadership: the voice of learners in the school

Referring to Section 4.2.3 in Chapter Four, it was evident that the concept of learner leadership
was understood in a more democratic way. Learner leadership was perceived as learner
participation and voice in the decision-making process, chiefly by the LRC members who were in
positions of serving on the School Board and accorded the opportunity to attend and participate in
parents’ school meetings. The findings revealed that the LRC members spoke on behalf of other
learners, and this could mean that this was the only existing opportunity for the learners’ voice to
be heard in the school. According to learner leadership literature, learner participation “encompass
all the aspects of school and decision-making where learners contribute, informally through
individual negotiation and formally through purposely created structures and mechanism”
(Bessong et al., 2016, p. 416). For Phaswana (2010), learner participation refers to “adults working
with learners to develop ways of ensuring their views are heard and valued” (p. 106). Learner
voice entails many ways in which learners actively participate in the school decisions that will
shape their lives and the lives of their peers (Fielding, 2001; Mitra & Gross, 2009).

In terms of these views, learner participation and voice were not broadly present in the school since
it was only confined to the LRC. Nevertheless, Flutter (2006) and Mitra and Gross (2009) suggest
that there are many opportunities/conditions where learners can participate and make their voice
heard in the school. These opportunities may include the initiation of learner leadership clubs such
as HIV/AIDS, environmental awareness and English proficiency clubs. Through learner leadership
clubs and other initiative reforms, learners are able to develop their voice as well as their leadership
(see for example Fielding, 2006; Flutter, 2006; Mitra, 2006; Mitra & Gross, 2009; Grant, 2015;
Grant & Nekondo, 2016). Furthermore, it is noted that when learners are given opportunity to
participate, they tend to be “creative and develop life skills such as problem solving, team working,
communication, negotiation and citizenship, all of which engender self-belief and confidence”
(Flutter, 2006, p. 188).

While the Learner Representative Council was viewed as the only channel for learner voice in the
school, it is noteworthy that the learners were at least given an opportunity to participate in a
democratic schooling system (Shuttle, 2007; Weger & Nowak, 2012). Ideally, learner participation
and voice are practiced in a truly democratic school where learners can make informed decisions
88
and actively participate in the decision-making. Thus, opportunities for learners to participate and
speak is “ethical in nature and its purpose is to promote the core value of social justice” (Grant,
2015, p. 95), which Fraser (2008) terms “parity of participation” which means the participation of
all on a par with others (p. 3). To contextualise this, the LRC members could sit together and
collaborate with their elders (teachers and parents) when decisions are made related to the issues
that are important to the school and to the learners. This contemporary idea of including learners
in the decision-making process, fundamentally challenges the traditional views about learner
leadership which overlooks and marginalises learners as valuable resources in the school structure
(see for example Smyth, 2006; Thomson & Gunter, 2006; Mabovula, 2009; Kennedy & Datnow,
2011; Sonn et al., 2011). This is just the tip of the iceberg of learner participation and voice; more
robust evidence of voice is yet to come in the remainder of this chapter.

Next, I discuss how leadership was equated with management, through the definition of learner
leadership.

5.2.3 Conflating leadership and management

According to the data presented in Chapter Four (see Section 4.1.3), leadership was equated with
management. The findings showed that learner leadership was understood as an instance of power
and control, whereby the LRC members possessed the power to control other learners in the school.
According to Gronn (2000) power means, “the exercise of structural authority” (p. 322). Gronn
(2000) further states that power is exercised in the military, where a general takes charge. This
simply means, if the notion of learner leadership is about the power to control other learners,
generally, a school can be compared to a military camp. Comparably, a study conducted by
Nongubo (2004) revealed that it is surprising that a concept of power which relates to warfare is
being used in schools. In short, the respondents did not distinguish between leadership and
management. This is because leadership and management constitute two sides of the same coin
and are often used interchangeably (Grant, 2012). However, literature on Educational Leadership
and Management indicates that the differences between the two referred concepts have been made.
For example, Earley and Weindling (2004), Spillane et al. (2004), Bush and Middlewood (2005),
Bush (2007), Northouse (2007), Christie (2010) and Nikodemus (2014) put it that leadership is an
instance of influencing others’ actions in achieving desirable ends. Management on the other hand

89
is about maintaining efficiently and effectively current organisational arrangements. Fitz (1999),
Northouse (2007) and van der Westhuizen (2014) posit that control is a management task aimed at
ensuring that all the planned goals and objectives are attained. Van der Westhuizen (2014) further
argues that control “originates because there is an authority-respect relationship between a leader
as a person in authority and the subordinate person” (p. 232). From this I deduced that the LRC
members were in authority and were seen to be superior to other learners. Reasoning from a
managerial perspective, “leaders are superior to followers, followers depend on leaders” (Gronn,
2000, p. 320), and this could be one of the reasons why the concept of learner leadership was
conflated with management.

Additionally, literature on school leadership (Harris & Lambert, 2003; Spillane et al., 2004;
Hatcher, 2005) argue that schools have a typical structure of authority which is underpinned or
informed by policy. This suggests that school leadership is locked predominantly into management
structures which necessitate responsible control. Thus, I argue that the reason for the participants
conflating leadership and management resulted from the leadership orientation of the school which
I tend to believe was more managerial. The logic of my argument does not mean that management
is not important, but my point is that leadership cannot be imposed on others. This is in line with
Harris and Lambert (2003, p. xvii) and Hatcher (2005, p. 255) who contend that leadership should
be “bestowed, denoted wilfully by those who are to be led”. On the other hand, there is a need for
schools to shift away from a leadership paradigm based on power and control (Hatcher, 2005) and
the only solution is distributed leadership which is about flexibility and metabolisms and not
structures (Harris & Lambert, 2003).

5.2.4 Building leadership capacity

The concept of learner leadership was also understood as building leadership capacity, particularly
on pedagogy. Generally, capacity building refers to “creating the experiences and opportunities for
people to learn how to do certain things” (Harris & Lambert, 2003). In the context of learner
leadership, building leadership capacity could mean the creation of space and opportunities for
learner leadership in schools. In line with the participants understanding, learner participation in
instruction is one of the spaces and opportunities for learner leadership development. This notion
of engaging learners in pedagogy is supported by many writers (e.g. Shor, 1996; Flutter, 2006;

90
Fielding, 2006; Mitra & Gross, 2009; Zyngier, 2012) who explain that when learners are involved
in pedagogy, teachers can listen to the voice of the learners on how they learn and what they need.
In fact, this challenges the traditional teaching and learning pedagogy where the best teacher
captures it all while learners listen and conform (Collinson, 2007). Additionally, Baroutsis et al.,
(2016) argue that “if learning is a core activity of schooling, then being able to make informed
choices about learning activities is an important aspect of learner voice” (p. 449). The practical
involvement of the learners in the process of teaching and learning is unpacked further in Section
5.2.

Even though the findings indicated that the concept of learner leadership was about capacity
building, the data did not make it clear who was responsible for learner leadership capacity
building and what the most propitious conditions for learner participation were. Harris and
Lambert (2003) posit that capacity building cannot take place in hierarchical structures designed
for stability and efficiency. Thus, distributed leadership which involves the ability to empower
and influence others is at the core of capacity building (Harris, 2004; Timperley, 2005; Spillane,
2006; Spillane, Camburn, & Pareja, 2007). If building leadership capacity requires distributing
leadership, then it is the role of the principal to make sure that learner leadership is embraced in
the school. Spillane, (2006), Harris (2011), Kelley and Dikkers, (2016) indicate that without the
support of the principal, distributed leadership is unlikely to flourish in a school. Therefore, learner
leadership capacity building can only be achieved when the school principal provides a wide range
of leadership opportunities where learners can participate and take the lead. Additionally, though
sounding contradictory, Harris and Lambert (2003) state that “teachers must take the major
responsibility for building leadership capacity in schools since they represent the largest and most
stable group of adults, however the role of the principal is more important than ever” (p. 36).
Furthermore, Uushona (2012) argues that building learner leadership capacity requires skillful
involvement; this suggests that it is again the role of the principal to make sure that there are skillful
learner leaders who understand the full scope of learner leadership development opportunities in
the school. To conclude this section, Harris and Lambert (2003) argue that a school is like a ship;
everyone ought to be prepared to take the helm, including the learners.

91
Having discussed the conceptual understanding of learner leadership, I discuss how leadership was
practised and implemented by the LRC members in the school in the next section.

5.3 The practice and implementation of LRC leadership in the school

As presented earlier in Chapter Four, the raw data indicated that the LRC members executed
countless leadership roles and perhaps management roles in the school, though this will be
discussed later in this section. After assessing the findings on the roles of the LRC members in
Chapter Four, I generally positioned it in an analytical framework, relating it to Mitra and Gross’
(2009) pyramid of student voice, as illustrated in Section 2.5.4 of Chapter Two. A learner
leadership model is thus illustrated below.

Figure 5.1: A new learner leadership model (adapted from Grant’s teacher leadership model,
2006)

5.3.1 Zone one: The LRC leadership practice inside the classroom

It was a surprise that the LRC members were involved in roles inside the classroom which I believe
should have been executed by the class monitors. As discussed in Section 5.1.3, learner leadership

92
was referred to as the power to control other learners in the school. This section discusses how the
LRC members exercised control inside the classroom and how they policed teachers. Mention has
already been made of the fact (in Section 5.1.3) that control constitutes a management task aimed
at making sure that the planned and organised activities are achieved (Northouse, 2007; van der
Westhuizen, 2014). The findings highlighted that the LRC members were involved in management
tasks such as control and supervision. The LRC members maintained order and discipline in the
classrooms when teachers did not turn up for lessons. The findings further indicated that the LRC
members were allocated different classrooms to control and supervise learners during the study
sessions. Lastly, the data established that the LRC members controlled and monitored the cleaning
of classrooms. All the above tasks reflect the roles of a manager rather than of a leader. Regarding
this notion of control and supervision, the two studies conducted by Shekupakela-Nelulu (2008)
and Uushona (2012) reveal the same. Here I am not saying that the exercise of control by the LRC
members is a negative action; on the contrary. It is only not a sign of leadership. According to
Christie (2010), those who are in structural positions are bound by the goal and primary task of the
organisation. In this case, the LRC members were in the structure of the school and they were
accountable for the outcome of learning in the school. Thus, they took responsible control of other
learners. This is what Bell terms “relay devices that link government mentalities and policies”
(Angus, 2006, p. 377).

The notion of a relay device is interesting and worth pursuing. The regulations made under the
Education Act (Namibia. Education Act No. 16 of 2001) instructs the LRC members to have power
and authority over other learners and to maintain order and discipline in the school, including
inside the classroom (Harris & Lambert, 2003; Spillane et al., 2004; Hatcher, 2005). Another line
of reasoning draws from the evolution of educational leadership and management. It is argued that
the discourse of educational leadership and management has been drawn and transferred from
business and industry and directly influences schools to operate like businesses (Bush, 1999; Fitz,
1999; Christie, 2010). However, leadership is the key fact underpinning school success (Earley &
Weindling, 2004). On the other hand, Strydom (2017) argues that the LRC members may execute
managerial tasks thinking that they are leadership tasks. Therefore, I tend to believe that these LRC
members were not aware that control and supervision was not primarily a leadership task.

93
Besides control and supervision, the LRC members were also policing teachers. The findings
indicated that the LRC members were tasked with the responsibility of writing down the names of
the teachers who failed to attend their lessons and to make sure that teachers were coming to class
on time and giving out enough activities. This helped to involve learners in their learning and is
closely related to a discussion in Section 5.1.4, that the concept of learner leadership was
understood as the involvement of learners in pedagogy. However, this is quite different. The
impetus of involving learners in pedagogy means teaching and learning together. According to
Freire, as cited in Collinson (2007), the “teacher is no longer merely the-one-who teaches, but one
who is taught in dialogue with learners, who in their turn while being taught also teach” (p. 4).
This simply means a collaboration of teachers with learners, whereby teachers ask for learners’
opinions on how they feel about their learning, how they learn and about their needs and then take
it on in their practice. These findings simply highlighted that the LRC members were used to
reporting wrongdoings rather than correcting them and developing leadership capacity. The
practice of using the LRC members to police teachers as if to support the personalisation of
learning, can bring about tension between teachers and learners (Forest, Lawnton, Adams, &
Swain, 2007).

Inside the classrooms, the LRC members, and perhaps class monitors, are supposed to focus more
on pedagogy, whereby they can engage in dialogues with fellow learners to solicit information
about how they are experiencing learning and then provide teachers with feedback (Fielding, 2006;
Flutter, 2006). For example, a study conducted by Mitra (2006) showed that learners were experts
on their classroom experiences and provided teachers with feedback on pedagogy. Similarly,
Strydom (2017) reported that the LRC members listened to the complaints from their classmates
about the inept way in which they were being taught but the sad part was, they were not asked to
give their opinions on what was best for them. Instead, the school governing body decided for
them.
Next, I discuss the roles played by the LRC members outside the classroom (zone two). The zone
two discussion is entirely based on Section 4.2.1 of Chapter Four.

94
5.3.2 Zone two: Outside the classroom

In this zone, the LRC members were more actively involved in genuine leadership and collaborated
with teachers and the school community at large. However, this does not mean that they did not
execute managerial tasks; it is just that managerial tasks were minimal. What is interesting is that
the voice of the learners and of the LRC members were heard in this zone.

To begin with, there are the leadership roles carried out by the LRC members. The findings
revealed that the LRC members carried out leadership roles such as leading and making
announcements during the school devotions, coordinating and motivating fellow learners, leading
in dialogue with fellow learners and the school community to find possible solutions to the
problems experienced by the learners, and lastly, coordinating of social events to raise money for
the school development.

5.2.2.1 Leading and reporting during devotions

The data established that the LRC members took the lead in the morning school devotion.
Conducting of school devotions is part of the public space where learners can take the lead and
convey information (Fielding, 2006). According to the findings, the LRC members used the
morning devotion platform to address other learners and teachers on events such as sports, which
took place in the school and in the region. Furthermore, the findings revealed that the LRC
members serving on the School Board used the morning devotion space to report back to the
learners regarding some of the issues discussed in the School Board meetings. According to
Nongubo (2004), it is of paramount important for LRC members to report back to other learners
because some issues affect them in one way or the other. This was extraordinary, since many
studies on LRC leadership (Nongubo, 2004; Shekupakela-Nelulu, 2008; Mncube, 2008;
Phaswana, 2010; Uushona, 2012; Strydom, 2017) show that LRC members were not given
opportunities to lead and speak. A study by Uushona (2012) indicated that the LRC members used
to sing a regional inspirational song during devotions, simply doing their set duties instead of
leading. Interestingly also, was that the teachers did not speak on behalf of the LRC members,
challenging Fielding (2001) and Grant (2015), who argue that schools tend to teach learners to be
passive participators in democracy, rather than leaders; often teachers speak on behalf of learners.

95
The findings provided clear evidence that the LRC members were not only given opportunities to
lead but also a space for their voice to be heard. I argue that this was also a good opportunity to
develop leadership capacity for the LRC members in the school. Hence, the LRC members proved
that learners can also lead, while teachers follow. The findings suggested that distributed leadership
was promoted because the LRC members acted as leaders, while teachers often followed when the
learners led the devotions. The findings also implied that there was good collaboration between
the teachers and the LRC members regarding the coordination of the school devotions, since both
groups were involved and reciprocated.

5.2.2.2 Coordinating motivational programmes that matter to learners

The LRC members planned and coordinated the motivational programmes for other learners in the
school. The findings highlighted that the LRC members used to invite influential and successful
people to come and motivate learners. The findings further indicated that there were some
instances where the LRC members motivated fellow learners. This is in line with Khanare and de
Lange (2017), who argue that learners are active human beings and should be given fair chances
to plan and coordinate programmes. However, it is unusual for learners to motivate and inspire
other learners (see for example, Uushona 2012; Strydom, 2017). While it is evident that the LRC
members were at the forefront of the motivational programmes in the school, I argue that these
LRC members were passionate and had the compassion to serve other learners by creating enabling
conditions which helped other learners to reach their full potential. In support, Nikodemus (2014)
argues that we need leaders who sincerely care about the plight of others and who can make a
difference in the lives of people in their surroundings.

Furthermore, the findings highlighted that the LRC members coordinated other programmes
related to the interests of the learners. For example, the data revealed that a commemoration of An
African Child Day was coordinated by the LRC members. This suggested that the LRC members
were offered a space to develop their leadership skills, more especially on how to interact with
other learners. By so doing, the LRC members learnt how to communicate and work with fellow
learners (Strydom, 2017). Additionally, the findings suggested that there was a healthy relationship
between the LRC members and fellow learners. In support, Grant (2015) argues that relationships
matter most in schools because if relationships are working, programmes can be implemented

96
successfully. The findings suggested that the school had confidence and a high level of trust in the
learners and this is clearly evident as the LRC members pioneered all learner related programmes
in the school. This is a good sign of leadership capacity building, since the LRC members were
fully in charge and not driven by teachers on what to do.

5.2.2.3 The LRC members as powerful instruments for mediation and negotiation

The findings revealed that the LRC members led the dialogue between fellow learners and other
members (teachers, hostel superintendent & cooks/kitchen staff). The findings mainly indicated
that the LRC members used to hold meetings with other learners to solicit the complaints
experienced in the school. The LRC members then engaged in dialogue with the concerned group
in an attempt to find possible solutions. For example, the data indicated that some of the complaints
gathered and solved via the LRC members in the school, included lack of hygiene in the kitchen
and dining hall and the need for learners to watch the news. The findings showed a significant
feature of democratic schooling where learners are given opportunities to speak and be heard (see
Shuttle, 2007), unlike Carr and Williams (2009), who report that the LRC members “were not
accountable to the learners whom they were supposed to be representing” (p. 74). Another example
is when Nongubo (2004) reports that learners were not offered chances to voice their grievances
and this ended in violence and lead to the involvement of police. This is a manifestation of
Fielding’s (2001) warning that it is dangerous to ignore the voice of learners, because they will be
frustrated and tend to be violent. However, for this study, findings were quite convincing that
efforts had been made to listen to the complaints of the learners and that their demands were acted
upon.

Additionally, the findings revealed that the LRC members used to organise joint meetings for all
the school stakeholders to come together and talk face-to-face with the learners. From this we get
a good picture of healthy communication between learners and other stakeholders in the school,
since they could all come together and discuss issues concerning learners. In support, Fielding
(2006) argues that “when young people lead dialogue with peers and with staff, this helps the
school members to live well together” (p. 312). This reflects what Mabovula (2009) calls a good
“web of social relations” (p. 223).

97
To sum up, the findings showed that learners possessed the negotiation skills and ability to
collaborate with adults to resolve the problems amicably. In terms of leadership theories, the
findings strongly suggested distributed leadership, as the evidence highlighted the interactions of
multiple leaders working together to hear and solve problems faced by the learners in the school.

5.2.2.4 Coordinating social activities to raise funds for school improvement

The LRC members capitalised on social activities to raise funds for school improvement. The
findings revealed that the LRC members hosted sports activities and various social events with the
purpose of collecting funds to buy a school bus. Sports and social activities are one of the functions
of the LRC members in schools (see the regulations made under the Education Act No. 16 of 2001).
Furthermore, while Harris and Lambert (2003) argue that learners are neglected in school
improvement, the findings of this study provided emerging evidence that learners have huge
potential to contribute to school improvement. In line with the findings, Carr and Williams (2009)
in their studies of representatives of learners in Western Cape schools report that the LRC members
were involved in fundraising activities and organised various recreational activities in support to
beautify the school buildings and grounds. Similarly, Flutter (2006) also reports that learners in
some schools in UK were architectures of change by seeing a need for school buildings to be
redesigned and improved. Flutter (2006) further reports on the successful outcome on a project of
improving school buildings by learners (see also, Grant & Nekondo, 2016). In like manner, the
LRC members were also concerned about the school not having a school bus thus, they made use
of social and sports activities to raise money to contribute to the development and improvement of
the school. This process not only benefitted the school but as Flutter (2006) argues “learners
discover creative and life skills such as problem-solving, teamworking, communication,
negotiation and citizenship, all which engender self-belief and confidence” (p. 188).

Having discussed the leadership tasks which, the LRC members executed outside the classroom, I
now move on to discuss the management tasks carried out by the LRC members outside the
classroom.
The management tasks executed by the LRC members outside the classroom included maintaining
of discipline, hostel and kitchen supervision, as well as organising of cleaning campaigns.
Following is a discussion on the above.

98
5.2.2.5 The LRC members as tools for maintaining order and discipline in the school

As inside the classroom (see Section 5.2.1) the LRC members controlled other learners outside the
classroom. According to the findings in Section 4.2.1, the LRC members ensured that learners
strictly adhered to the set of school rules. The findings highlighted that the correct wearing of the
school uniform was the aspect being mostly controlled. It seems like the notion of the LRC
members controlling other learners is a common managerial task in schools, because even
Shekupakela-Nelulu (2008), Uushona (2012) and Strydom (2017) report the same findings.

5.2.2.6 Hostel and dining hall supervision

As discussed in Section 5.2.1, the LRC members supervised other learners during study sessions,
at hostel dormitories and at the dining hall. According to the findings, (see Section 4.2.1) the LRC
members were tasked to keep the hostel keys and ensure that they open and lock up the hostel. The
findings also revealed that the LRC members patrolled the hostel to see if there were any learners
who was feeling sick and then report it to the hostel superintendent. In contrast to hostel
supervision by the LRC members, The Hostel Administrative Guide for Government School
Hostels (Namibia. MBESC, 2004) stipulates that hostel supervision should be carried out by the
appointed teachers and matrons. To come back to the findings, it seemed as if teachers and the
matron gave away their formal responsibility to LRC members or perhaps they delegated as
stipulated in the policy. The regulations made under the Education Act (Namibia. Education Act
No. 16 of 2001) highlight that the LRC members can perform any other reasonable tasks assigned
by the principal. So, with this in mind, I argue that there may be an element of management
coercion in the allocation of hostel supervision to the LRC (see Van der Westhuizen, 2014).

Moreover, the findings indicated that the LRC members supervised at the dining hall by checking
if other learners were wearing suitable and acceptable clothes and shoes for the dining hall.
Furthermore, the findings also highlighted that the LRC members served food since there were not
enough cooks to serve.
Relating the above findings to distributed leadership as a conceptual framework for this study,
there is a mismatch between the two, since distributed leadership does not promote delegation of
tasks (Spillane, 2006; Harris, 2011). Instead, distributed leadership encourages equal execution of

99
tasks by all involved individuals. In this case, the formal appointed hostel and kitchen cooks could
equally collaborate with the LRC members, rather than delegating.

5.2.2.7 Cleaning campaigns to protect the health and welfare of learners

School cleaning campaigns were organised and coordinated by the LRC members as mandated by
the policy (see the regulations made under the Education Act No. 16 of 2001). The findings
indicated that the purpose of the cleaning campaigns was to ensure that the school environment
was clean and conducive for the health and wellbeing of the learners in the school. In fact, the
LRC members were just implementing the educational policy.

Having discussed the leadership and management roles carried out by LRC members outside the
classroom, in the next section, I discuss the roles which the LRC members carried out in zone
three: in the School Board and School Management Team. First, I discuss the role played by the
LRC members in the School Management Team. Thereafter, I will focus on the School Board.

5.3.3 Zone three: In the School Management Team and the School Board

5.3.3.1 In School Management Team meetings

According to the data presented in Section 4.2.3, the LRC members were not compelled to attend
the School Management Team meetings as there was no any legal policy which entitled them to.
However, for some schools, internal arrangements are made for the LRC members to attend the
SMT meetings. Here I am not arguing that the LRC members should be part of the SMT, since
each school has autonomy to make their own arrangements. Even so, the findings revealed a
positive relationship between the LRC members and the SMT. The findings indicated that
whenever the LRC members planned to initiate any activities, they were always in consultation
with the SMT; for example, when the findings revealed that the two bodies (the LRC & SMT) used
to come together to discuss the proposed activities for the LRC members. The findings painted a
good picture by revealing that all the 31 proposed activities for the 2016-2017 year plan, were
approved by the SMT. In contrast, Steinmann (2013) reports that the SMT in his two case study
schools used to turn down the proposals of the LRC members. What is outstanding from the
findings is the reciprocal interdependence that shaped the leadership practice of the LRC members
(see Spillane, 2006). The findings offered an impressive record that LRC programmes should reach

100
and be discussed by both the LRC members and the SMT. Unlike in Nongubo’s study (2004),
where the LRC programmes were kept under wraps and caught the SMT off-guard.

5.3.3.2 On the School Board

In this zone, the LRC members were fully engaged in leadership and collaborated with adults who
served on the School Board. According to the findings (see Section 4.2.3) two learners from the
LRC represented other learners in the School Board. Interestingly, the findings revealed that the
two learners were not only attending the School Board meetings, but equally contributing their
views and opinions just like any other members. This is exactly in line with the guide Effective
School Board Establishment and Maintaining (Namibia. MoEAC, 2016) which states that “each
member has the right to speak at the meeting and be listened to with respect “(p. 13). The findings
also indicated that the learners were not only listened to, but their inputs were considered and
implemented. For example, the data revealed that the learners proposed the idea that the school
should buy a sound system, a change in the school uniform and that the LRC members should have
t-shirts; all these ideas were implemented. This echoes with Cockburn (2006) who found that
learners’ voices are effective when they attend meetings, but are even more effective when they
actively take part in shaping the agenda of the meetings concerned. Based on the above evidence,
I argue that these learners were not a “stamp of approval” (Mabovula, 2009).

One of the significant features of the findings is the fact that the learners equally attended all the
meetings and were not asked to excuse themselves from some of the meetings, such as disciplinary
hearings of the teachers. This designates that learners were treated equally as partners as it was
expressed that “the only difference is age, but they equally contribute” (see Section 4.2.3). This is
however different from some learner leadership studies conducted in Namibian and in South
African schools (see for example, Nongubo, 2004; Shekupakela-Nelulu, 2008; Mncube 2008; Carr
& Williams, 2009; Mabovula, 2009; Phaswana, 2010; Uushona, 2012; Mncube & Harber, 2013;
Steinmann, 2013; Bessong et al., 2016; Strydom, 2017) which highlight that learners were not
represented in the School Governing Body or School Board and if represented, they were not seen
as equal partners since they were asked to leave the meetings if there was a sensitive topic to be
discussed. However, in this study, the findings indicated that learners where encouraged to
participate as evident in this phrase: “They tell us to be free and give our opinions” (see Section

101
4.2.3). Even though the learners were encouraged to be free, the findings however revealed that
they were a bit reluctant to contribute to the topic that discussed the disciplining of teachers as
“perhaps they felt insecure due to age or power relations” (see Section 4.3.2). This will be
unpacked in the constraints section. Still, it is worth mentioning that the LRC members were fully
given the opportunity to deliberate and make decisions on the issues that affected their lives and
the school. I believe through this participation, learners learnt to discuss issues with different
people with varying perspectives.

To conclude this zone, the findings challenged the traditional views of leadership. Adults were not
convinced that learners could participate in decision-making and adults were not ready to share
the school space as equal decision-making partners with the LRC members. The findings also
supported the views of distributed leadership which suggest that leadership does not only reside in
the office of the principal, but is stretched over the teachers, parents and learners (Spillane, 2006).
The findings credibly showed multiple groups of individuals in the execution of leadership tasks
(Spillane et al., 2004). According to Mitra (2006), “by adding students to the ‘who’ of school
decision-making, the concept broadens the scope of distributed leadership” (p. 315). Finally, the
findings remind us that learners possess unique knowledge about their school that the teachers and
parents cannot replicate, without this partnership (Mitra & Gross, 2009).

In the following section, I discuss the roles executed by the LRC members in the last zone (four).

5.3.4 Zone four: Beyond the school boundaries

The LRC members did not only execute the leadership roles within the school, but they also
crossed the school boundaries. The findings (see Section 4.2.4) made known that the LRC
members visited primary schools and motivated the learners. The findings also indicated that the
LRC members planned to visit the media and motivate a wide range of learners in the country. As
I mentioned earlier in zone one, these LRC members were very ambitious and selfless. This is in
line with Rhodes and Brundrett (2009) who argue that leadership is a moral activity, so through
the findings one can see the morals of these learners in reaching out to other learners and
influencing them. In line with this, the studies by Mitra (2006), Carr and Williams (2009) and
Strydom (2017) report that learners were involved in community outreach programmes. For

102
example, Strydom (2017) reports that the LRC members were involved in community projects
where they raised funds for cat and dog food and they also gave flowers to the elderly at the old
age home. In support of activities beyond the school, Fielding (2006), Thomson and Gunter (2006)
argue that learners should be encouraged to make a difference in the school, neighbourhood and
in the community.

Lastly, the LRC members were not only involved in motivational programmes outside the school;
the findings stated that they used to deliver speeches at some events such as memorial services or
funerals. This sounds emotionally taxing, but in the process learners learnt to communicate to a
multitude of people in different situations.

The next section discusses the conditions which enabled LRC leadership in the school. The
conditions were: leadership training, support from the School Management Team, support from
the LRC liaison teacher and networking with other schools. I begin with leadership training for
the LRC members.

5.4 The enabling conditions for the LRC leadership in the school
5.4.1 Leadership training for the LRC members

The findings revealed that (see Section 4.3.1) leadership training was the most important factor
which supported LRC leadership development. The findings further stated that, the LRC members
were trained on leadership at both regional and school level. According to van der Westhuizen
(2014), “pupil leaders cannot simply be appointed and then left to their own device” (p. 364). This
simply means that when the LRC members are trained they get the necessary leadership skills
needed to execute their leadership roles in school functions and the community (Harris, 2002;
Bessong et al., 2016). Similarly, it is noted that when the LRC members undergo leadership
training, it helps them to develop their leadership skills which they can also use after leaving school
and which they could also pass on to other aspiring learners (Mncube & Harber, 2013). While it
was essential for the school to send its LRC members for leadership training, it is not always the
case that LRC members are sent for leadership training. For example, studies by Nongubo (2004),
Uushona (2012), Mncube and Harber (2013) indicate that there were no LRC leadership training

103
or workshops arranged. Relating positively, Shekupakela-Nelulu’s (2008) findings report that one
school among his three case study schools, sent the LRC members for leadership training. For
Strydom (2017), only the LRC liaison teacher received training on behalf of the LRC members.
As such, I argue that the school took a positive step to ensure that the LRC members were trained
and capacitated on leadership.

The following section focuses on support from the School Management Team.

5.4.2 Support from the School Management Team

As discussed earlier (see Section 5.2.3) the LRC members had a good relationship and
communication with the LRC members. The fact that the SMT used to discuss and approve most
if not all the activities of the LRC members, shows that they were interested in promoting and
supporting the LRC leadership in the school. In addition to the support, the findings highlighted
that the SMT used encouraged and motivated the LRC members to diligently carry out their roles
in and beyond the school. The other mark of support was the fact that on Tuesdays, the LRC
members used to meet with the school principal to discuss issues concerning their leadership and
the school in general. This was evident when the LRC members said that “without the principal
none of the tasks would have been carried out” (see Section 4.4.2). In support, principals are
viewed as important figures who have the responsibility of promoting maximum learner leadership
development in schools (see Harris & Lambert, 2003; Mncube & Harber, 2013). The findings from
other LRC leadership studies (Nongubo, 2004; Carr & Williams, 2009; Uushona, 2013; Strydom,
2017) indicate a negative level of support by the SMT. For example, Strydom (2017) reports that
the LRC members could not openly talk to the principal. In contrast, the findings from my study
showed that the LRC members were free and open to talk to the SMT which included the principal.
While Phaswana (2010) indicates that the SMT in his study played delaying tactics when
approving the proposals of the LRC members, the above discussion reflects that the SMT
embraced the notion of LRC leadership in the case study school.

5.4.3 Support from the LRC liaison teacher

Findings (see Section 4.3.3) indicate that there was a teacher devoted to the LRC members. The
findings positively established that the liaison teacher supported the LRC members in various ways

104
such as giving them clear guidance about their roles, motivating them and accompanying them to
leadership training. A key evidence of support was when the LRC members expressed themselves
by referring to the liaison teacher in this way: “She is our mother” (see Section 4.3.3) and the fact
that she helped the LRC members to get their LRC t-shirts. The findings indeed reflected that the
liaison teacher supported the LRC members and this also implied a good relationship. As Carr and
Williams (2009) state that “a good relationship between the LRC liaison teacher and the LRC
members is crucial if the LRC is to work effectively (p. 74). I believe it was a good exercise for
the liaison teacher to orientate the LRC members on their roles and functions, as they may not be
aware or have the knowledge and skills required for their roles (Baroutsis et al., 2016). Regarding
this notion of support by the LRC liaison teacher, the literatures indicates that this was the case at
most of the schools (see for example, Nongubo, 2004; Carr & Williams, 2009; Mabovula, 2009;
Strydom, 2017).

5.4.4 Support from networking with LRC members of other schools

The data presented in Chapter Four, Section 4.4.4 indicates that the LRC members used to visit
other secondary schools, mostly the performing ones, to learn and share LRC leadership practices.
According to Harris (2002), “networking with other schools provide important opportunities to
learn from each other “(p. 60). In line with Harris (2002) I conclude by expressing that it was a
good initiative for the LRC members to partner with other schools and I believe this was a
wonderful opportunity for them to learn various initiatives and effective leadership practices from
other LRC members.

In the next section, I discuss the contradictions.

5.5 The surfaced systemic contradictions

As discussed in Chapter Two, I used CHAT to surface and analyse challenges faced by the LRC,
by describing them as contradictions. The use of CHAT exposes the complexity of challenges as
they all involve people who have histories and cultural norms, and since they are about
relationships, tensions are always complex and therefore solutions will be complex. However, this
study did not go the extent of resolving the surfaced systemic contradictions as per the principles

105
of CHAT. Nevertheless, the study managed to surface the possible suggestions on how LRC
leadership could be strengthened and promoted in the school.

To remind the reader, in terms of CHAT, contradictions indicate tensions between or among
different elements of the activity system. I wish to highlight that the study only managed to surface
secondary contradictions, so no primary contradictions are going to be discussed in this section.
The next diagram, Figure 5.2, shows the relationships within elements as applicable to this study,
after which I discuss the secondary contradictions.

Figure 5.2: Activity system: Relationship within the elements (Adapted from Engeström, 1987)

5.5.1 Contradictions between the subject and community

There was a tension between the subjects (the LRC members) and learners as part of the
community and it hindered the leadership development of the LRC members (object). The data
presented in Chapter Four, Section 4.4.1, indicated that the other learners used to disrespect the
LRC members by not obeying their instructions, as well as shouting and making a noise during
the motivational programmes. Lack of respect from the learners was evident in their expressions
such as “Who are you to tell us that?” and “You are just a learner like us” (see Section 4.4.1). The

106
findings also highlighted that learners felt that they were older than some of the LRC members, so
they undermined their leadership capabilities. In line with CHAT, respect is deeply rooted in
culture. Culturally, children are brought up to respect and obey the instructions of their elders, be
it at home or in the wider community (Dawes & Donald, 1994; Mncube & Harber, 2013). Here I
want to recognise the ecological background of the learners and context of the school. Since the
case study school was a rural school and most of the learners were from the villages, those living
in these rural areas still strongly respect their cultural norms and values. This suggests that learners’
behaviour towards the LRC members was influenced by their cultural norms and values, because
they have only been exposed to according respect to the senior members of the community, such
as the traditional leaders and parents at homes (Donald, Lazarus, & Lolwana, 2010; Steinmann,
2013; Idang, 2015). This could also suggest that learners were not used to being given orders and
instructions by other learners because traditionally, instructions should be given by the elders and
not by children. According to van der Mescht (2008) “schools are open systems and it is in their
very openness that social forces shape the cultures and structure of their organisational being”
(p. 17). This simply means that learners brought their cultural norms and values to school, thus it
was difficult for them to respect the instructions of their fellow learners (the LRC members)
because it conflicted with their culture (see Bronfenbrenner, 1979). On this account, it was evident
that the conservative traditions and environment affected the functioning of the LRC (see also,
Carr & Williams, 2009).

The other potential cause of disrespect is the notion of traditional teacher-centered teaching
methods. Traditionally, teachers used to tell learners what to do and learners were not allowed to
say anything unless asked to repeat what had been said by the teacher (see the Learner Centered
Education Policy, Namibia. MBEC, 1999). I argue that the traditional teaching methods have
negatively influenced the learners’ attitudes by only teaching them to listen and follow the
instructions of the teachers, instead of developing in them the ability to speak up and listen to one
another. I suggest that learners do not want to be instructed by fellow learners (the LRC members)
because they expect the teachers to be a unilateral authority as is the cultural norm (Shor, 1996).
It is for this reason that learners refused and retaliated by saying “You are just learners like us”. If
the same instruction was given by a teacher – such remarks would not be made.

107
Furthermore, the history of school leadership plays a part as traditionally, school leadership has
been equated with the principal and learners have been absent from school leadership (Spillane,
2006). Thus, these learners were only exposed to the leadership of the school principal and to the
instructions of the teachers in the classrooms. The current leadership practice (distributed
leadership) which includes the learners in school leadership, is a relatively new ideology and it is
for this reason that learners find it difficult to accept the instructions and orders from their fellow
learners and as a result, this is viewed as disrespect. Here, what is apparent, is the fact that the lack
of respect towards other learners (the LRC members) was due to the traditional belief which locates
leadership within a single individual and therefore not necessarily the personal peculiarities of the
learners.

The following section will focus on the contradictions between the subject and community
(teachers).

5.5.2 Contradictions between the subject and the community

Another major tension was between the subjects and teachers who were part of the community.
Teachers belittled and underestimated the worth of the LRC members in the school. The findings
revealed that teachers did not value the LRC members as was expressed: “Teachers viewed us as
useless people” (see Section 4.5.2). The data also revealed that teachers were apathetic about the
activities of the LRC members as was evident in the following statement: “Teachers are not
cooperating with the LRC members and they feel that the LRC members should not be valued”
(see Section 4.5.2). The findings simply indicated that teachers did not accept the inclusion of LRC
leadership, hence learners have been traditionally overlooked as valuable resources (Kennedy &
Datnow, 2011). In fact, the real issue here was the power relations. According to Shor (1996),
power problems are socially and historically constructed. In line with this, Mncube and Harber
(2013) describe the African traditions as a phenomenon, where children do not engage in
discussions and dialogue and only elders sit under a big tree and talk and agree. Here, I argue that
the perception of the LRC members by teachers, was perpetuated by the cultural beliefs of the
teachers, that children are just children, therefore they do not have the power to say anything in
the school (Strydom, 2017). Furthermore, the new ideology of devolution of power to LRC
members, could be a threat to teachers’ own power and authority, hence teachers have dominated

108
learners in schools (Fielding, 2001; Rhodes & Brundrett, 2016). Regarding the issue of feeling
threatened, the findings revealed that teachers were not happy with the fact that the LRC members
used to hold meetings with the school principal. In line with this, (Luke, Donohue, & Smith, 2006)
argue that the emancipation and empowering of learners can cause conflict between teachers and
learners, because the learners have the potential to upset the traditional status within schools such
as not embracing learner voice (see also, Mitra & Gross, 2009; McMahon & Portelli, 2012; Smyth,
2012).

Equally important, is the issue of democracy. Historically, undemocratic relations dominated

education and traditional schooling (see Pomuti, 2012; Smyth, 2012). According to Smyth (2012)
learners were treated in “detached and hierarchical ways that distance them from relational
intimacy and were viewed as defective categories in need of technical remediation” (p. 79). This
generally meant that learners were not valued and had no power in schools. This issue of not
respecting and valuing learners by teachers, is rooted in traditional undemocratic pedagogy which
placed power and authority in the teachers (see Shor, 1996; Collinson, 2007). While it is self-
evident that teachers have dominated by being the holders of power, it is important to note that
schools are now turning into democratic institutions which promote democratic leadership and
social justice that involves learner leadership. Therefore, the new practices of democracy and
social justice challenged the teachers to distribute power and authority to the learners, particularly
the LRC members in the case study school. However, teachers may consider this new democracy
practice as a form of disempowerment and they may want to maintain the traditional status quo.
This is line with Knott-Craig (2017) who argues that many teachers are products of authoritarian
homes, as well as authoritarian schools. I thus argue that such traditional mentality has influenced
teachers from taking part in the activities initiated by the LRC members. In support of this, Bessong
et al. (2012) argue that learners are finding it difficult to challenge the traditional institutionalised
procedures and power relations and as such, there is a lack of LRC support and recognition by
teachers (see also, Uushona, 2012; Strydom, 2017). However, Shuttle (2007) emphasises that “a
good interpersonal relationship between teachers and learners can dissolve barriers of authority,
hierarchy or separateness and help forge truly collaborative partnerships” (p. 44). This suggests
that teachers need to work together with the learners and support them. However, it may take time

109
to build a climate in which both teachers and learners feel comfortable working together (Harris,
2002) because true democracy is a slow process (Baroutsis et al., 2016).

The following section will focus on the contradictions between the object and community.

5.5.3 Contradictions between the object and the community

There was a tension between the object and the community. The findings revealed that the LRC
members were overloaded with tasks and yet they were still expected to study (see Section 4.5.4).
This implied there was tension between the work the LRC members carried out in that role, and
their studies as learners at the school. This was clearly evident as it was expressed that “the LRC
members don’t 100% attend to their school work because of too many roles and responsibilities
and meetings, and parents did not send their children to come and become LRC members, but to
study”. This suggested that there was poor time-management and no well thought out timetable
with regards to their LRC roles and meetings that were held (see Uushona, 2012; Steinmann,
2013). I do not really intend to discuss the study habits of the LRC members, but want to discuss
why there was a tension between the object and community. According to the findings discussed
in zone two, it was the culture and practice of the school for the LRC members to serve at the
dining hall: “When I joined the LRC last year, I found the former LRC members serving at the
dining hall”. As discussed earlier in zone two, the LRC members were doing double work; they
performed their own roles as stipulated in the policy and at the same time performed the role of
the cook, as well as the matron as they also supervised at the hostel. This also suggested that the
school somehow lacked knowledge about what the real roles of the LRC members were, or perhaps
it was caused by the culture where children should obey the instructions of their parents without
any objections. I also acknowledge that traditionally, children are born to assist their parents or
elders with their work, but this does not mean that children should be slaves. Irrespective, I argue
that the practice of serving at the dining hall and hostel supervision was contrary with the roles of
the LRC members, as per the regulations made under the Education Act (Namibia. Education Act
No. 16 of 2001).

Next, I focus on the contradiction between the subject and community.

110
5.5.4 Contradiction between the subject and the community

There was a contradiction between the subject and the community. The findings revealed that the
LRC members were operating without a room in which they could meet for their LRC meetings
(see Section 4.5.5). It was clearly evident that the LRC members were not offered a room by the
school because they were just children: “Sometimes you want to give these LRCs a room, but it is
very difficult because they are just children” (see Section 4.5.5). This reflected the image of culture
where children are not respected, therefore they were denied the privilege of being given a room
where they could discuss the issues concerning their leadership. I am not surprised that all the LRC
files and minute’s book (artefacts) were kept by the LRC liaison teacher, because there was no
LRC room where they could store these items. This gave the impression that the LRC members
held their meetings in an open space. Unfortunately, during my observations, I never saw the LRC
meeting on their own, apart from the Tuesday meetings with the principal.

5.5.5 Lack of teamwork in the LRC

Lack of team work among the LRC members cannot be a systemic contradiction, but a challenge.
The findings revealed that the LRC members used to disagree and could hardly reach conclusions
during their meetings due to their differing opinions (see Section 4.5.3). It is normal for people to
have different opinions since everyone is different and come from different environments with
different experiences (Strydom, 2017). However, the disagreements and differences which existed
between the LRC members are worth mentioning because they might have hindered the LRC
members in performing their roles effectively and efficiently.
The findings revealed that some of the LRC members were not attending the meetings and it was
difficult for decisions to be taken since they did not reach a quorum (see the regulations made
under the Education Act No. 16 of 2001). The findings further revealed that the LRC members
were not co-operating as it was expressed: “We don’t like to work together” (see Section 4.5.3) and
some of the members would not even talk to each other. It is clear from the findings that there was
no team-work among the LRC members and I acknowledge that without unity they would not be
able to reach their goal which was to execute leadership in the school. Regardless, Angus (2006)
argues that leadership is “always difficult and always involves tensions and contradictions”
(p. 372).

111
Having established a picture of the tensions among the LRC members, I want to discuss the
possible root cause of the challenges being experienced. Having rigorously analysed the data, it
was evident that the LRC members were operating without a documented code of conduct
(artefact), as a guideline containing values to represent and prescribed good conduct for the LRC
members (Steinmann, 2013). This tells us that the leadership of learners has been neglected, since
there should not have been a functioning body (the LRC) without the code of conduct that regulates
the behaviour of the members or stakeholders. Here I again refer to the Education Act (Namibia.
Act No. 16 of 2001), as it makes provision for including learners in the school leadership structure
and outlines the functions and powers of the LRC members –yet, it does not make provision for a
code of conduct for the LRC. This in turn can give birth to unethical behaviour among LRC
members. However, if there was a code of conduct, then the LRC members would possibly not
have experienced such challenges, as they would have been held accountable.

Apart from policy neglecting the leadership function of the LRC, the school has itself been in
existence for over 40 years and yet has never considered coming up with its own internal code of
conduct for the LRC. This gave the impression that the school has actually been without LRC
members for those years. It can further be acknowledged that perhaps the LRC members found it
difficult to cooperate with one another, as it is practically impossible for people to work together
and carry out their roles effectively, without a code of conduct to regulate them. Thus, I agree with
Uushona (2012) that the Ministry of Education should provide the national LRC a code of conduct.
Finally, the findings implied that training on communication or a special talk was needed so that
the LRC members could be taught how to work together and how to deal with conflict (see Carr
& Williams, 2009; Steinmann, 2013; Strydom, 2017).

Having discussed the surfaced systemic secondary contradictions on the LRC activity system and
challenges experienced by the LRC members, I will now discuss the surfaced suggestions on how
to strengthen and promote LRC leadership development in the school.

5.6 Suggestions from research participants

There was a need for the LRC members to collaborate with the teachers. The findings discussed
in Chapter Four, Section 5.6.1, suggested that teachers should take an interest in the activities of
112
the LRC members and that they should work together with them (see Mitra & Gross, 2009). The
findings furthermore suggested that teachers should value the LRC members as leaders in the
school.

The findings also suggested that there was a need for the learners to be taught on the importance
of the LRC members as learner leaders in the school (see Section 5.4.1). While it was suggested
that the teachers should collaborate with the LRC members, and learners needed to be taught about
the LRC members in the school, I argue that these suggestions need to be taken beyond the
empirical experiences. There needs to be deep excavation and uprooting of cultural norms and
historical background which contributes to hindering LRC leadership development, so that a
meaningful change and understanding can take place.

In addition, the findings suggested that there was a need for a code of conduct to guide and regulate
the LRC members during their meetings and a rigid timetable and schedule for LRC activities (see
Steinmann, 2013, see also Section 5.4.3). Relatedly, the findings suggested that there was a need
for more leadership training, particularly on communication skills, so that the LRC members could
learn how to listen to each other. In line with this, van der Westhuizen (2014) argues that training
programmes for pupil leaders should always be evaluated and the deficiencies be incorporated into
future training programmes.

5.7 Conclusion
In this chapter, I discussed the findings from the data. It emerged that the notion of learner
leadership was understood more from a managerial perspective, as control and position dominated
the definitions. The discussion indicated that the LRC members executed more leadership roles in
zone two, three and four, while in zone one, they only executed the managerial roles of controlling
other learners and policing the teachers.

It transpired that the school supported LRC leadership development by means of allowing full
participation in all the meetings of the School Board and well as the fact that the School
Management Team and the LRC liaison teacher helped the LRC members. The leadership training
offered to the LRC members, painted a good picture of embracing LRC leadership in the school.

113
However, there were also some constraints such as a lack of support from the teachers, lack of
respect from learners, poor communication between LRC members and an overload of tasks given
them by the school, which included the serving of food at the dining hall and hostel supervision.
Using CHAT as an analytical tool, I discussed the secondary contradictions which I surfaced during
the data collection process.

In the next final chapter, I summarise the main findings of the study and make recommendations
for practice and future research. Limitations of this research are also pointed out, after which the
thesis concludes.

114
 CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Introduction
This chapter summarises the main findings of the study. These are the main findings that emerged
from the raw data that are presented in Chapter Four and discussed in Chapter Five of the thesis.
This chapter also presents the new knowledge generated by the study, recommendations for
practice and for future research. Limitations for this study are also presented. Finally, there is the
conclusion which includes a brief self-reflection. In the next section, I move on to an overview of
the study.

6.2 Overview of the study

This study aimed to gain insight into how learner leadership was currently understood and
practised in the school. This study also unearthed the cultural-historical forces enabling and
constraining learner leadership development. Lastly, the study explored possible suggestions as to
how learner leadership could be developed and promoted in the school. To achieve these goals, the
following research questions were formulated and posed:

1. What is the current understanding of learner leadership in the school?

2. How is learner leadership practiced and implemented by the LRC members in the school?

3. What are the conditions that promoted and/or constrained the Learner Representative
Council’s leadership development in the school?

4. What needs to be done to strengthen the promotion of the Learner Representative Council’s
leadership development in the school?

115
6.3 Summary of research findings
This section highlights and summarises the key findings to have emerged from the presentation
and discussion in Chapter Four and Five. The findings in respect of research questions one, two,
three and four are presented in that order.

6.3.1 Findings related to research question one

“What is the current understanding of learner leadership in the school?” The findings for research
question one indicated that learner leadership in the case study school was understood mostly from
a traditional point of view which equated leadership with formal positions. For example, most of
the participants understood learner leadership in terms of the legal or legitimate Learner
Representative Council, the LRC which comprises of individual learners who represent other
learners in leadership roles and decision-making processes in the school. Another understanding
that emerged was that the LRC possessed power to control other learners and make sure that they
adhered to the school rules. These findings align with the regulation made under the Education Act
(Namibia. Act No. 16 of 2001), which gives power to the LRC members to control other learners
in the school. Naturally, this falls under management instead of leadership. Though learner
leadership was mostly understood from a traditional view, it also emerged that learner leadership
was partly understood as capacity building and empowerment of learners to develop leadership
skills as they are groomed to become future leaders.

6.3.2 Findings related to question two

“How learner leadership is practiced and implemented by the LRC members in the school?” The
findings for research question two indicated that the LRC members executed both leadership and
managerial roles in the classroom, outside the classroom, on the School Board and beyond the
school boundaries. Inside the classroom, the LRC members were mainly involved in managerial
roles of controlling other learners and policing teachers who did not make it to their lessons. It was
also noted that the LRC members oversaw study supervision. This practice still promoted
management rather than leadership, as supervision is usually associated with management. In this
sense the learners were an extension of the teachers’ role of supervising and monitoring the
behaviour of other learners.

116
Outside the classroom, the LRC members executed numerous leadership roles and minimal
managerial roles. The findings indicated that the LRC members coordinated and led the school
morning devotions. It also emerged that the LRC members used to hold meetings with fellow
learners in the school. The purpose of the meetings was to gather information from the learners on
issues which they were not happy with, and needed and wanted to be improved. In this regard, the
LRC members served as a powerful channel of communication between learners, teachers, the
School Management Team and the hostel superintendent. The findings further indicated that the
LRC members spearheaded the common meetings for teachers, the School Management Team and
learners, to discuss and find solutions to issues affecting learners in the school. These practices of
leadership by the LRC members was in line with distributed leadership theory. Furthermore, the
findings indicated that the LRC members were involved in the coordination of learners’ extra-
curricular activities and social events, such as hosting of shows and sports games at the school.
According to the findings, the LRC members took advantage of the extra-curricular activities to
raise funds for the development of the school, such as the buying of a school bus. In addition, the
findings indicated that programmes that mattered most to the learners, such as learner motivation
and the African Child Day event, were coordinated by the LRC members in the school. The above
leadership spaces were means of capacity building which can only been seen through the looking
glass of distributed leadership (Harris & Spillane, 2008).

Apart from the leadership roles executed by the LRC members outside the classroom, the findings
revealed that the LRC members executed managerial roles, such as hostel and dining hall
supervision. It emerged that the LRC members served at the dining hall. Notwithstanding the fact
that the LRC members assisted with serving food, the findings however brought some health-
related concerns. It was not evident if the LRC members underwent a medical examination, as this
was not really part of the study. All people who handle food should get a medical check-up for
contagious diseases (see The Hostel Administrative Guide for Government School Hostels
(Namibia. MBESC, 2004). Finally, on managerial roles, the LRC members as per the mandate of
the Education Act (Namibia. Education Act No. 16 of 2001), ensured that the school environment
was clean by organising cleaning campaigns.

117
It also emerged from the study that the LRC members were involved in the school’s decisioning
processes. The findings indicated that two members of the LRC were members of the School
Board, which was the highest decision-making body of the school. According to the findings, the
two learners served on the School Board and attended all the meetings. They participated fully and
their ideas were equally valued as the other adult members and actioned (parents, principal and
teachers). The value of considering learners in decision-making processes, promote a democratic
and socially just schooling system where learner voice can be heard (Mitra & Gross, 2009). The
above is a true reflection of distributed leadership, which advocates the interaction and
interdependence of leaders (Spillane, 2006).

The LRC members also executed leadership roles outside the school. The findings indicated that
the LRC members visited primary schools to motivate other learners. Also, the findings indicated
that the LRC members wanted to go to the media, for example the radio service station, to again
motivate other learners countrywide. This really showed that the LRC members were not only
concerned with the affairs and well-being of their fellow learners within their school, but also made
a great impact in the lives of other learners in the country. Moreover, the findings pointed out that
the LRC members were given opportunities to go and deliver speeches at events which concerned
the school. As a result of the findings, I developed a learner leadership model. At this point it is
worth mentioning that the emerged learner leadership model contributes to new knowledge in the
field of Educational Leadership and Management and chiefly to learner leadership studies. The
model is illustrated below:

118
Figure 6.1: A learner leadership model (adapted from Grant’s teacher leadership model, 2006).

6.3.3 Findings related to research question three

“What are the conditions that promoted and/or constrained the Learner Representative Council’s
leadership development in the school?” The findings responding to research question three,
indicated that numerous conditions promoted the leadership development of the LRC in the school.
For example, the data indicated that the LRC members were sent for leadership training to acquire
leadership skills to be able to carry out their leadership roles effectively and efficiently in the
school and outside the school. The findings also revealed that the School Management Team and
the LRC liaison teacher played a huge part in supporting the LRC members to fulfil most of their
activities, as per the LRC year plan. For example, the findings indicated that all 31 proposed LRC
activities for 2016-2017, were approved by the school management. The LRC members also
managed to obtain their LRC t-shirts with the assistance and support of their teacher. The last
condition that promoted the LRC leadership development was networking of the LRC members
with other LRC members of other schools, where they learnt new leadership practices.

119
On the other hand, the findings also indicated that there were some conditions which constrained
the leadership development of the LRC in the school. Constrained conditions that emerged were
tensions within the council, lack of respect from other learners, teachers attitude of being unwilling
to support the LRC leadership in the school, among others. It also emerged from the findings that
there was no designated office/room for the LRC where they could come together to discuss their
issues. Finally, on the constraining conditions, the findings indicated that the LRC members were
overloaded with too many roles and responsibilities, some of which included hostel and dining
hall supervision, and that this conflicted with their study time.

6.3.4 Findings related to research question four

“What needs to be done to strengthen the promotion of the Learner Representative Council’s
leadership development in the school?” Finally, suggestions from the findings indicated that the
LRC leadership in the school could be strengthened if learners were taught about the roles and
importance of the LRC in the school. Also, it was suggested that there was a need for more
leadership training on communication for the LRC members. Other suggestions that emerged were
that teachers needed to change their attitude and start supporting LRC leadership in the school.
The findings suggested that there was a need for the LRC to have their own room/office, where
the LRC members could come together to discuss issues concerning their council. Lastly, the
findings suggested that a code of conduct to regulate the LRC needed to be formulated.

6.4 Possible underlying historical/cultural reasons for the status quo

The analysis of systemic contradictions found that learners in the school refused to be led and be
given instructions by fellow learners because they were just learners like them. Some learners felt
that they were older than some of the LRC members. CHAT ploughed deeper and revealed that the
ecological context of the school influenced learners’ perceptions of leadership. Culturally and
historically, children are not allowed or encouraged to take up leadership roles, particularly in the
African context. Traditionally, leadership is the property of traditional leaders in the community
and the parents at home.

CHAT further revealed that teachers’ negative attitudes towards the LRC members were
historically and culturally rooted. Most of the teachers went through an undemocratic education

120
system, where power and authority were fully vested in the teachers and principal. It was unusual
for teachers to share power and authority with the learners, because learners were supposed to
listen to the teachers. Additionally, most of the teachers were from a black community and
culturally, in a black community, children cannot lead, but can only be led by their elders.

CHAT was useful in this study as it allowed me to look deeper into the system to reveal the causes
of contradictions which historically and culturally accumulated in the activity system of learner
leadership in the school. Furthermore, CHAT helped to understand how peoples’ culture and
history have the potential to affect the goal of an activity such as learner leadership development,
especially as an activity system involves relationships and interactions between groups of people.
In the next section I make some recommendations for practice because of my study.

6.5 Recommendation for practice

From the research findings it emerged that the learner leadership scope was totally confined to the
LRC and that this limited learner leadership development in the school. For learner leadership to
be fully developed in the case study school, this study recommends that the scope of learner
leadership should be extended to other learners in the school for example, through the
establishment of various learner leader clubs. By doing so, all learners will have the opportunity
to develop their leadership skills and have a voice in the school.

The study also recommends that the LRC members should collaborate with other learners to
execute leadership activities. For example, inside the classroom, the LRC members should work
together with the class monitors not to only control other learners, but to engage in dialogue with
other learners regarding their learning experiences, which they can then communicate to the
teachers and School Management Team.

In line with what has been suggested by the research participants, this study also echoed that
teachers should support the LRC members in executing their leadership roles. However, through
the lens of CHAT, the study recommends compulsory short courses on learner leadership, as this
would help teachers to appreciate, support and collaborate with learners when performing
leadership activities.
121
It was evident in the findings that some learners refused to be led by fellow learners. This study
recommends that learners in the case study school should be taught about the importance of the
LRC members in the school, as this would assist them in embracing learner leadership. The minds
of the learners also need to be decolonised from the traditional view of leadership which believes
that children cannot lead. The study recommends more leadership training for the LRC members,
specifically on teamwork and communication skills, as this would help to reduce tensions in the
council. The Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture should design a national code of conduct for
the LRC in schools. The case study school is also advised to design their own code of conduct to
help the LRC members to develop self-control.

Finally, it emerged that the LRC members were unable to focus on their studies due to the workload
and times that the meetings were held. This study recommends a proper time-table and a schedule
of School Board meetings, as this would help with any conflicting arrangements and allow the
LRC valuable time to concentrate on their school work. It is important for the LRC members to
only execute the roles which are within their scope and not be delegated to perform other people’s
formal paid work, such as hostel and dinning supervision, as this will also help to reduce the
workload of the LRC members.

In the next section, I move on to focus on the limitations of this research and recommendations for
future research.

6.6 Limitations of the study

It is a fact that every situation has a limit. This study has limitations too. The first limitation of this
study is the research orientation. This study is a qualitative, interpretive case study. This study was
limited to a single intrinsic case study of learner leadership in one secondary school in rural
northern Namibia. This implies that the findings lack generalisation and transferability (Stake,
1995). However, the readers of this study may naturally generalise and transfer the findings to their
own context, based on their own experiences (Stake, 1995).

122
The second limitation of this study is the subjective nature of the research. The quality of the study
is limited by the honesty and different lived experiences of the participants. However, this was
minimised by triangulation of data. Furthermore, the population size was relatively small and
homogeneous. The study only sampled people (School Management Team, School Board
members and the LRC liaison teacher) who worked closely with the LRC members as per the
Education Act (Namibia. Education Act No. 16 of 2001). Learners and teachers were excluded
from the study. These limitations were necessary for the scope of the study. Next, I discuss
recommendations for future research and the conclusion.

6.7 Recommendations for future research

Learner leadership is under researched in Namibia, therefore more studies need to be conducted
on the topic. The two recent studies carried out that I came across, are small scales studies as is
mine, therefore I recommend that more large scale [comparable] studies need to be carried out.
The above-mentioned studies as well as mine, explored learner leadership in rural secondary
schools. Thus, I recommend that similar studies need to be carried out in urban secondary schools.
I also recommend that future research should focus on primary schools which offer a different
context from secondary schools. Learner leadership studies were conducted in state schools,
therefore learner leadership in private schools need to be explored as their experience might be
different from state schools. I would also recommend that future research should use CHAT, as it
has the ability to surface contradictions and can move the study beyond description to an
intervention, where contradictions and meaningful improvement of the practice is likely to take
place. Finally, I recommend future researchers on the topic of learner leadership development,
consider using the emerged learner leadership model, as it would help to capture a good if not a
complete picture of learner leadership development in schools. I now conclude the study with some
final thoughts.

6.8 Conclusion
This qualitative, interpretive case study attempted to gain an insight into learner leadership
development within a Learner Representative Council in a Namibian state secondary school in the
Oshana Region. The study has addressed the stated goals and answered the research questions. The

123
revelation from this study was that the use of CHAT helped me to discover, that learner leadership
was hindered by peoples’ history and culture. I personally learnt a lot during this study, from the
historical overview and growth of educational leadership and management, the traditional
leadership theories and the current distributed leadership theory. Through this study, I got to
understand why schools operate the way they are operating. Being a LRC liaison teacher myself,
through learner leadership literature, I obtained a better understanding of what learner leadership
entails and this will now help me to improve learner leadership practices at my school, circuit and
in the entire region, as this would promote learner voice in schools.

124
 REFERENCES

Angus, L. (2006). Educational leadership and imperative of including student voices, student
interests, and students’ lives in the mainstream. International Journal of Leadership in
Education: Theory and Practice, 9(4) 369-379.

Bardarch, E. (2009). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective
problem solving. Washington, D.C: CQ Press.

Baroutsis, A., Mills, M., McGregor, G., Riele, K., & Hayes, D. (2016). Student voice and
community forum: Finding ways of ‘being heard’ at an alternative school for
disenfranchised young people. British Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 438-453.

Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P., & Harvey, J. (2003). Distributed leadership: Full report.
Nottingham: NCSL. Retrieved 4 July, 2017, from
http://www.ncsl.org.uk/media/3C4/a2/distributed -leadership-literature-review.pdf

Bertram, C., & Christiansen, I. (2014). Understanding Research: An introduction to reading

research. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

Bessong, R., Mashau, T., & Mulaudzi, P. (2016). Learners as education stakeholders: Do they
form part of decision-making in South African schools? International Journal of
Education Science, 15(3), 416-423.

Bezuidenhout, R. M. (2014). Theory in research. In F. Cilliers, C. Davis, & R. Bezuidenhout

(Eds.), Research matters (pp. 36-59). Cape Town: Juta and Company Ltd.

Bless, C., Higson-Smith, C., & Sithole, S. L. (2013). Foundation of social research methods: An
African perspective. Lusaka: JUTA.

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research

Journal, 9(2), 27-40.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development, Experiments by nature and

design. London: Harvard University Press.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bush, T. (1999). Crisis or crossroads? The discipline of educational management in the

late1990s. Educational Management & Leadership, 27(3), 239-252.

Bush, T. (2007). Educational leadership and management: Theory, policy, and practice. South
African Journal of Education, 27(3) 391-406.

125
Bush, T. (2011). Theories of educational leadership and management (4th ed.). London:
SAGE Publication Ltd.

Bush, T., & Middlewood, D. (2005). Leading and managing people in education. London:
SAGE Publications.

Carr, I., & Williams, C. (2009). The mediation of representative council of learners’ policy in
Western Cape schools. South African Journal of Education, 29, 69-82.

Chilvers, D. (2011). Improving the quality of social work field education: The efficacy of an
analysis using Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work,
23(4), 76-88.

Christie, P. (2010). Landscape of leadership in South African Schools: Mapping the changes.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(6), 694-711.

Cockburn, D. (2006). Mapping student involvement. Paper presented at the Sparqs

conference on student involvement. Lauder College: Dunfermline.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. New York:
Routledge.

Collinson, D. (2007). Leadership and the learner voices. In Collison (Ed). Leadership and the
Learner Voice, volume four (pp. 4-11). Centre for Excellence in Leadership.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating qualitative

and quantitative research. England: Pearson.

Cuba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigms and perspectives in contention. In N. K. Denzin
& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Qualitative Research (pp. 183-216). United Kingdom: SAGE
Publications.

Dawes, A., & Donald, D. (1994). Childhood & adversity, Psychological perspectives from
South African research. Cape Town: David Philip Publishers (Pty) Ltd.

DeMatthews, D., & Izquierdo, E. (2016). School leadership for dual language education: A social
justice approach. The Education Forum, 80(3), 278-293.

Donald, D., Lazarus, S., & Lolwana. (2010). Educational psychology in social context,
Ecosystemic applications in Southern Africa. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.

Drake, T. L., & Roe, W. H. (1980). The principalship (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan
Publishing Co., Inc.

Drake, T. L., & Roe, W. H. (2003). The principalship (6th ed.). United State: Merill/Prentice
Hall.

126
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental
research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultiti.

Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström,
R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspective on Activity Theory (pp. 19-38).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical

reconceptualisation. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.

Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental

research (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Engeström, Y., & Miettinen, R. (1999). In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki (Eds.),
Perspective on Activity Theory (pp. 1-16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fielding, M. (2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change, 2,

123-141.

Fielding, M. (2006). Leadership, radical student engagement and the necessity of person-centred
education. International Journal of Education: Theory and Practice, 9(4), 299-313.

Fitz, J. (1999). Reflections on the fields of educational management studies. Educational

Management Administration & Leadership, 27(3), 313-321.

Fitzgerald, T., & Gunter, H. (2006). Teacher leadership? A new form of managerialism. New
Zealand Journal of Educational Leadership, 21(2), 44-57.

Flutter, J. (2006). This place could help you learn: Student participation in creating better school
environment. Educational Review, 58(2), 183-193.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J.H. (2005). The interviews: From neutral stance to political involvement.
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Qualitative Research (pp. 695-47281). United
Kingdom: SAGE Publications.

Forrest, C. , Lawton, J. , Adams, A. , Louth, T. , & Swain, I. (2007). The impact of learner voice
on quality improvement. In D. Collinson (Ed.), Researching leadership in the learning
and skills sector: By the sector, on the sector, for the Sector (pp. 13-29). Lancaster, UK:
Centre for Excellence in Leadership, Lancaster University Management School.

Foster, W. (1989). Towards a critical practice of leadership. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical

perspectives on educational leadership (pp. 39-62). London: Routledge Falmer.

Fraser, N. (2008). Scales of justice, Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. UK:
Polity Press.

127
Grant, C. (2008). We did not put our pieces together: Exploring a professional development
initiative through a distributed leadership lens. Journal of Education, 44, 85-107.

Grant, C. (2009). Towards a conceptual understanding of education leadership: Place, space

and practices. Education as Changes, 13(1), 45-57.

Grant, C. (2012). Daring to lead: The possibility of teacher leadership in Kwazulu-Natal schools.
In V. Chikoko, & K. M. Jorgesen (Eds.), Leadership, management and governance (pp.
51-68). South Africa: Nova Science Publisher.

Grant, C. (2015). Invoking learner voice and developing leadership: What matters to learners?
Journal of Education, 61, 93-113.

Grant, C. (2017). Distributed leadership in South Africa: Yet another passing fad or a robust
theoretical tool for investigating school leadership practice. School Leadership and
Management. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017.1360856

Grant, C. (2017). Excavating the South African Teacher archive: Surfacing the absences and re-
imagining the future. DOI:10.1177/171143217717274.

Grant, C., & Nekondo, L. (2016). Learners as leaders in Namibian schools: Taking
responsibility and exercising agency. PEGC Research Report. Faculty of Education,
Rhodes University, Grahamstown.

Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties. Educational Management Administration &

Leadership, 28(3), 317-338.

Gronn, P. (2003). The new work of educational leaders: changing leadership practice in an
era of school reform. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Gronn, P. (2008). The future of distributed leadership. Journal of Educational Administration,

46(2) 141-158.

Gunter, H. M. (2001). Leaders and leadership in education. London: Paul Chapman

Publishing.
Gunter, H. M. (2005). Leading teachers. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Gunter, H. & Thomson, P. (2006). But, where are the children? Management in Education,
21(1), 23-28.

Hall, D. J., Gunter, H., & Bragg, J. (2013). The strange case of the emergence of distributed
leadership in schools in England. Educational Review, 65(4), 467-487.

Harris, A. (2002). School improvement, What’s in it for schools? London: Routledge Falmer.

128
Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement: Leading or misleading?
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 32(1), 11-24.

Harris, A. (2007). Distributed leadership: Conceptual confusion and empirical reticence.

International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(3), 1-11.

Harris, A. (2011). Distributed leadership: Implications for the roles of the principal. Journal of
Management Development, 31(1), 7-17.

Harris, A. (2013). Distributed leadership: Friend or foe? Educational Administration &

Leadership, 41(5), 545-554.

Harris, A., & Lambert, L. (2003). Building leadership capacity for school improvement.
England: Open University Press.

Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2005). Improving schools through teacher leadership. England: Open
University Press.

Harris, A., & Townsend, A. (2007). Developing leaders for tomorrow: Releasing system
potential. School Leadership and Management, 27(2) 167-177.

Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., & Hopkins, D. (2007). Distributed leadership
and organizational change: Reviewing the evidence. Journal of Educational Change, 8,
337-347.

Harris, A., & Spillane, J. (2008). Distributed leadership through the looking glass. Management
in Education, 22(1), 31-34.

Harris, A., Jones, M., & Baba, S. (2013). Distributed leadership and digital collaborative
learning: A synergistic relationship? British Journal of Education Technology, 44(6), 926-
939.

Harris, A., & DeFlaminis, J. (2016). Distributed leadership in practice: Evidence, misconceptions
and possibilities. Management in Education, 30(3), 141-146.

Hartley, D. (2007). The emergence of distributed leadership: why now? British Journal of
Educational Studies, 55(2), 202-214.

Hopkins, D., & Jackson, D. (2003). Building the capacity for leading and learning. In A. Harris,
D. Hopkins, M. Hadfield, A. Hargreaves, & C. Chapman (Eds.), Effective leadership for
school improvement (pp. 84-105). London: Routledge Falmer.
Idang, G. E. (2015). African culture and values. Phronimon, 16(2), 97-111.

Irwin, P. (2003). An introduction to surveys and questionnaires. Faculty of Education, Rhodes

University, Grahamstown.

129
James, K. T., Mann, J., & Creasy, J. (2003). Leaders as lead learners: A case example of
facilitating collaborative leadership learning for school leaders. Management learning,
38(1), 79-94.

Kelley, C., & Dikkers, S. (2016). Framing feedback for school improvement around distributed
leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(3), 392-422.

Kennedy, B. L., & Datnow, A. (2011). Student involvement and data-driven decision:
Developing a new typology. Youth & Society, 43(4), 1246-1271.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational
conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration,
38(2), 112-129.

Khanare, F. P., & De Lange, N. (2017). We are never invited’: School children using collage to
envision care and support in rural schools. South African Journal of Education, 37 (1) 1-
11.

Knott-Craig, I. (2017). Learner leadership development in a secondary school in the Eastern

Cape, South Africa. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Rhodes University, Grahamstown.

Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership
on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, 16(4), 319-333.

Koonin, M. (2014). Validity and reliability. In K. Maree (Ed.), First steps in research (pp. 252-
260). Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

Kotter, J. P. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York:
The Free Press.

Kotter, J. P. (1999). On what leaders really do. New York: Harvard Business Press.

Lektorsky, V. A. (1999). Historical change of the notion of activity: Philosophical

presuppositions. In S. Chaiklin, M. Hedegaard, & U. J. Jensen (Eds.), Activity theory and
social practice (pp. 100-113). Headington: Aarhus University Press.

Leont’ev, A.N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall.

Leont’ev, D. A. (2002). Activity theory approach: Vygotsky in the present. In D. Robbins, & A.
Stetsenko (Eds.), Voices within Vygotsky non-classical psychology: Past, present, future
(pp. 46- 61). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Lompscher, J. (2002). The category of activity as a principal constitute of cultural-historical

psychology. In D. Robbins, & A. Stetsenko (Eds.), Voices within Vygotsky non-classical
psychology: Past, present, future (pp. 79- 99). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

130
Lompscher, J. (2006). The cultural-historical activity theory: Some aspects of development. In P.
H. Sawchuk, N. Duarte, & M. Elhammoumi (Eds.), Critical perspectives on activity:
Explorations across education, work, & everyday life (pp. 35-51). New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Louw, M. (2014). Ethics in research. In F. Cilliers, C, Davis, & R. Bezuidenhout (Eds.),

Research matters (pp. 262-273). Cape Town: Juta and company Ltd.

Lukeš, D., Donohue, F., & Mayhew-Smith, P. (2008). Leading personalization. In D. Collison
(Ed), Personalizing learner voice, volume eleven (pp. 7-23). Center for Excellence in
Leadership.

Lumby, J. (2013). Distributed leadership: The uses and abuses of power. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 41(5), 581-597.

Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Leadership versus management: A key distinction – at least in theory.

International Journal of Management, Business & Administration, 14(1),1-4.

Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2001). Leadership: theory. Application. Skill development. USA:
South Western College Publishing.

Mabovula, N. (2009). Giving voice to the voiceless through deliberative democratic school
governance. South African Journal of Education, 29, 219-233.

Maree, K., & Pietersen, J. (2012). Surveys and the use of questionnaires. In M, Kobus. (Ed.).
First steps in research (pp.155-169). Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39(4), 370-397.

Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. London: SAGE

Publication Ltd.

McMahon, B.J., & Portelli, J.P. (2012). The challenges of neoliberalism in education:
Implications for students’ engagement. In B. J. McMahon, & J. P (Eds.). Student
engagement in urban schools, beyond neoliberal discourse (pp. 1-9). United States of
America: Information Age Publishing, INC.

Mercer, J. (2007). The challenges of insider research in educational institutions: Wielding a

double‐edged sword and resolving delicate dilemmas, Oxford Review of
Education, 33(1), 1-17.

131
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mitra, D. L. (2006). Student voice from the inside out: the positioning of challenges.
International Journal of leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 9 (4),
315- 28.

Mitra, L., & Gross, J. (2007). Increasing student voice in high school reform: Building
partnerships, improving outcome. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 37(4), 522-543.

Mncube, V. (2008). Democratisation of education in South Africa: Issues of social justice and
the voice of learners. South African Journal of Education, 28, 77-90.

Mncube, V., & Harber, C. (2013). Learners’ democratic involvement in school governing bodies
in South Africa: Making the voice of the voiceless heard. Sa-Educ Journal, (10), 1-24.

Muronga, M. M. (2011). The participation of teachers in the management and decision-making

of three schools in the Kavango Region of Namibia. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Rhodes
University, Grahamstown.

Namibia. The Constitution of the Republic of Namibia. (1990). Windhoek: Gamsberg

Macmillan.

Namibia. Ministry of Basic Education and Culture. (1999). How learner centred are you?
NIED: Ministry of Basic Education and Culture.

Namibia. Ministry of Education and Culture. (2001). Education Act No. 16 of 2001.
Windhoek: Ministry of Education and Culture.

Namibia. Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture. (2016). Establishing and Maintaining
Effective School Board. Windhoek: Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture.

Nieuwenhuis, J. (2012). Introducing qualitative research. In K. Maree (Ed.), First steps in

research (pp. 45-122). Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

Nikodemus, S. T. (2014). Leadership ultimate pursuit. Windhoek: Trulead Training Institute.

Nongubo, M. J. (2004). An investigation into perceptions of learner participation in the

governance of secondary schools. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Rhodes
University, Grahamstown.

Northouse, P. G. (2007). Introduction to leadership theory and practice. London: SAGE

Publications. Inc.

132
Nyakundi, T. K. (2012). Factors affecting teachers’ motivation in public secondary schools in
Thika West District, Kiambu County. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Education of
Kenyatta University, Kahawa.

Pascoe, G. (2014). Sampling. In F. Cilliers, C. Davis, & R. Bezuidenhout (Eds.), Research

matters (pp. 131-145). Cape town: Juta and Company Ltd.

Phaswana, E. (2010). Learner councillors’ perspectives on learner participation. South African

Journal of Education, 30, 105-122.

Pomuti, H., & Weber, E. (2012). Decentralisation and school management in Namibia: The
ideologies of education bureaucrats in implementing government policies. International
Scholarly Research Network. Retrieved April 20, 2017, from http://dx.
Doi.org/10.5402/2012/1731072

Rey, F. G. (2002). L.S. Vygotsky and the question of personality in the cultural-Historical
approach. In D. Robbins, & A. Stetsenko (Eds.), Voices within Vygotsky non-classical
psychology: Past, present, future (pp. 130- 142). New York: Nova Science Publishers,
Inc.

Rhodes, C., & Brundrett, C. (2009). Leadership development and school improvement.
Educational Review, 61(4), 361-374.

Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). Vygotsky’s neglected legacy: Cultural-Historical Activity
Theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186-232.

Rule, P., & John, V. (2011). Case study. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

Sannino, A. (2011). Activity theory as an activist and interventionist theory. Theory &
Psychology, 21(5), 571-597.

Schedlitzki, D., & Edwards, G. (2014). Studying leadership: Traditional & critical approaches.
London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive research design. London: Routledge.
Shekupakela-Nelulu, R. (2008). An investigation into the roles of student participation in school
governance: A Namibian perspective. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Rhodes University,
Grahamstown.

Shor, I. (1996). When students have power, negotiating authority in a critical pedagogy.
London: University of Chicago Press.

133
Shuttle, J. (2007). Learner involvement in decision making. In D. Collison (Ed). Leadership
and the learner voice, volume four (pp. 30-48). Centre for Excellence in Leadership.

Smyth, J. (2006). “When students have power”: Student engagement, student voice and the
possibilities for school reform around “dropping out” of school. International
Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 9(4) 285-298.

Smyth, J. (2012). When students speak “back”: Student engagement towards a social just society.
In B. J. McMahon, & J. P (Eds). Student Engagement in Urban Schools, Beyond
neoliberal discourse (pp. 73- 90). USA: Information Age Publishing, INC.

Sokolova, E. E. (2002). The relationship between Vygotsky’s and Leont’ev’s research traditions
as revealed through an analysis of Leont’ev’ s early works. In D. Robbins & A. Stetsenko
(Eds.), Voices within Vygotsky non-classical psychology: Past, present, future (pp. 63-
76). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Sonn, B., Belgium, A. S., & Belgium, S. R. (2011). Hearing learner voice in health promoting
schools through participatory action research. Perspective in Education, 29(1),
93-104.

South Africa. Department of Education. (2008). Understand school leadership in the South
African context, A module of the Advanced Certificate: Education (School
Management & Leadership). Tswane: Department of Education.

Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice:
A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3-34.

Spillane, J. P., Camburn, E. M., & Pareja, A. S. (2007). Taking a distributed perspective to the
school principal’s workday. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6, 103-125.

Spillane, J. P., Harris, H., Jones, M., & Mertz, K. (2015). Opportunities and challenges for taking
a distributed perspective: Novice school principal’s emerging sense of their new
position. British Educational Research Journal, 41(6), 1068-1085.

Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative Case studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),

Qualitative Research (pp. 443-481). United Kingdom: SAGE Publications.

Stetsenko, A. P. (1999). Social Interaction, cultural tools and the zone of proximal development:
In search of a synthesis. In S. Chaiklin, M. Hedegaard, & U. J. Jensen (Eds.), Activity
theory and social practice (pp. 79-99). Headington: Aarhus University Press.

Strydom, M. P. (2017). Leadership development in a representative council of learners in a

secondary school in the Eastern Cape. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Rhodes University,
Grahamstown.

134
Timperley, H. S. (2005). Distributed leadership: Developing theory from practice. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 32(37), 395-420.

Tobach, E. (1999). Evolution, genetics and psychology: The crisis in psychology-Vygotsky,

Luria, and Leont’ev revisited. In S. Chaiklin, M. Hedegaard, & U. J. Jensen (Eds.),
Activity theory and social practice (pp. 79-99). Headington: Aarhus University Press.

Toor, S. R., & Ofori. G. (2008). Leadership versus management: How they are different, and
why? Leadership and Management in Engineering, 8(2), 61-71.

United Nations 1989. The United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child. New York:
Human Rights Commission.

Uushona, A.B. (2012). Learners’ participation in leadership: A case study in a secondary school
in Namibia. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Rhodes university, Grahamstown.

Van der Mescht, H. (2008). Educational leadership and management- Some thoughts from the
field. Journal of Education, 44, 7-24.

Van der Westhuizen, P. C. (2014). The development of scientific management thought and
some developments in the field of education management. In P.C. van der
Westhuizen (Ed.), Effective educational management (pp. 63-131). Pretoria: Kasigo.

Watkins, P. (1989). Leadership, power and symbols in educational administration. In J. Smyth

(Ed.), Critical perspectives on educational leadership (pp. 9-38). London:
Routledge Falmer.

Whitehead, G. (2009). Adolescent leadership development: Building a case for an authenticity

framework. Educational Management & Leadership, 37(6), 847-872.

Williams, C. G. (2011). Distributed leadership in South African schools: Possibilities and

constraints. South African Journal of Education, 31, 190-200.

Woods, P. A. (2005). Democratic leadership in education. London: Paul Chapman

Publishing.

Yamahata-Lynch, L.C. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complex

learning environments. Springer Science + Business Media. Retrieved
August 13, 2017, from http://www.springer.com/978-1-4419-6320-8
Yin, R. K. (1996). Case study research: Design and methods. London: SAGE Publications.

Young, M., & Dulwich, V. (2008). Similarities and differences between leadership and
management: High-performance competencies in the British Royal Navy.
British Journal of Management, 19, 17-32.

135
Zingier, D. (2012). Transformative Student Engagement – An empowering pedagogy: An
Australian experience in the classroom. In B. J. McMahon, & J. P (Eds). Student
Engagement in urban schools, Beyond neoliberal discourse (pp. 111-131).
United States of America: Information Age Publishing, INC.

136
 APPENDICES

Appendix A: Letter from my supervisor

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
Tel: +27 (0) 46 603 8383
Fax: +27 (0) 46 622 8028
PO Box 94, Grahamstown, 6140

23 May 2017
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
This is to certify that Rolens da Silva (student number 17R4923) is a registered Master’s
student at Rhodes University, currently pursuing research in fulfilment of the requirements for
the degree Master of Education, Educational Leadership and Management. Mr Da Silva has
made excellent progress in the course so far, and has successfully submitted a research
proposal to the Higher Degrees Committee. He has now reached the stage where data
collection is necessary, which necessitates spending a period of about two months at the school
of his choice. The purpose of this letter is to obtain your permission to allow the student to
conduct research in your region, circuit or school, and to assist the student as much as possible
to gain entry to institutions and access to people and documents.

Mr Da Silva’s research involves learner leadership at a school, and to conduct the study the
student needs to interview staff, learners and in some cases parents. The student will also need
to do observation, administer questionnaires, and study relevant documents. The university
has a strict ethical code which applies to research in education. The code includes guarantees
of confidentiality, anonymity, and respect for the context of the study. As such, the student
may not in any way interfere with the smooth running of the school, and needs to consider the
culture and norms of the institution. The student will obtain permission from all participants
in writing, and where learners are involved, permission will be sought from their parents.
Research is a difficult and challenging enterprise, and we would therefore really appreciate
anything you can do to make the student’s data gathering as smooth and effective as possible.

137
Your cooperation is highly appreciated. The student’s research is likely to constitute a valuable
contribution to the small body of literature on this important phenomenon in education, and
thus serve a broader purpose of uplifting educational standards in Namibia.

Should you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact.
Regards

(Prof) Hennie van der Mescht (h.vandermescht@ru.ac.za) (supervisor)

138
 Appendix B: Seeking permission from the Regional Director
Rolens da Silva
Private bag 2014
Ondangwa
24 May 2017
The Director of Education
Private Bag 5518
Oshakati
Oshana Region

Dear Sir/Madam
RE: REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO CONDUCT A RESEARCH STUDY AT A CASE
STUDY SCHOOL IN YOUR REGION
I am Rolens da Silva (student number 17R4923) a registered Master’s student at Rhodes. I now
reached the stage where data collection is necessary, which necessitates spending a period of about
two months at a secondary school in your region. The purpose of this letter is to obtain your
permission to allow me to conduct research in your region, and to assist me as much as possible to
gain entry to the school.

My research involves learner leadership at a school, and to conduct a research I needs to interview
the school principal HoDs, LRC teacher, LRC members and School Board chairperson. I will also
need to do observation, administer questionnaires with the LRC, and study relevant documents as
well as to take pictures of the participants which will serve as data in my thesis. Ethics are essential
elements in education research. I undertake to uphold the autonomy, confidentiality, and respect
for the context of the study. As such, I guarantee not in any way to interfere with the normal school
programmes and I will adhere to the culture and norms of the institution. I will obtain permission
from all participants in writing, and regarding the learners (LRC members), permission will be
sought from their parents.

Should you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact me on 081 3461 755/ email;
rolensd@gmail.com
Regards,
D. Rolens

139
 Appendix C: Seeking permission from the school gate keeper
Rolens da Silva
Private bag 2014
Ondangwa
24 May 2017
The Director of Education
Private Bag 5518
Oshakati
Oshana Region

Dear Sir/Madam
RE: REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO CONDUCT A RESEARCH STUDY AT YOUR
RESPECTIVE SHOOL
I am Rolens da Silva (student number 17R4923) a registered Master’s student at Rhodes. I now
reached the stage where data collection is necessary, which necessitates spending a period of about
two months at your school. The purpose of this letter is to obtain your permission to allow me to
conduct research in school.

My research involves learner leadership at a school, and to conduct a research I needs to interview
the school principal, HoDs, LRC members, LRC teacher, and School Board chairperson. I will
also need to do observation, administer questionnaires with the LRC, and study relevant documents
as well as to take pictures of the participants which will serve as data in my thesis. Ethics are
essential elements in education research. I undertake to uphold the autonomy, confidentiality, and
respect for the context of the study. As such, I guarantee not in any way to interfere with the normal
school programmes and I will adhere to the culture and norms of the institution. I will obtain
permission from all participants in writing, and regarding the learners (LRC members), permission
will be sought from their parents.

Should you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact me on 081 3461 755/ email;
rolensd@gmail.com
Regards,
D. Rolens

140
Appendix D: Permission letter from the Regional Director

141
Appendix E: Permission letter from the school principal

142
Appendix F: Letter of consent

Rolens da Silva
Private Bag 20124
Ondangwa
01June 2017

Dear parents, principal, HoDs, former LRC teacher and the School Board chairperson
Letter of invitation to participant in my research project

I am currently a registered Master’s student at Rhodes (student number 17R4923). I now reached
the stage where I must conduct a research, which necessitates spending a period of about two
months at your school. The purpose of this letter is to obtain your permission to participate in my
research. My research seeks to get insights of learner leadership, particularly the LRC
leadership in the school. As such, I would very much like to closely work with you. To conduct
a research, I will need to do observation, administer questionnaires, and interview you. I also want
you to allow me to take pictures which I will use as part of the data in my thesis.

Ethics are essential elements in educational research. I undertake to uphold your autonomy,
confidentiality, and respect you as a participant. As such, I guarantee not in any way to disclose
your name neither the information you will be sharing with me regard LRC leadership in the
school, apart from my supervisors who will read my work. Take note that participation is
voluntarily, and you are free to withdraw from this research at any time without any negative
consequences. If you agree to participate in this research, you are kindly asked to complete a
consent form provide below.

Should you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact me on 081 3461 755/ email;
rolensd@gmail.com or any of my following supervisors.
Yours sincerely
……………….
D. Rolens

143
Appendix G: Consent form
Consent form

I ………………………………………………………………. (Full names of a participant/parents

or guardian on behalf of the child) hereby confirm that I understand the content of this letter and
the nature of this research project. I am willing/ I allows my child…………………………to
participate in this research. I understand that I/my child reserve the right to withdraw from this
research at any time with any harm.

………………………… …………………………... ………………………..

Signature date contact details

144
Appendix H: Questionnaires administered to LRC members

Instructions for questionnaire

• Use a black or blue ink pen. please do not use a pencil.

• In the interest of confidentiality and anonymity, don’t write your name on the
questionnaire.
• Answer all the questions as possible as you can.

1. As a member the LRC, what does LRC leadership mean to you?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

2. In your own view, do you think LRC members are needed as leaders in the school? Give
reasons for your answer.

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
3. What roles and responsibilities do you play as LRC member in the school? Discuss in
detail.-
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
4. Are there any initiatives and/or visible changes that the LRC members have proposed or
implemented in the school? If yes, what are those initiatives and/or changes? Also discuss
what ways they were successful and what challenges were faced. If none, why do you think
this is the case?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
5. (a) Discuss the relationships:

145
(i) Among the LRC members in the school
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
(ii) Between the LRC members and fellow learners in the school
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
(iii) Between the LRC members and the teachers in school
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
(iv) Between the LRC members and the School Management Team (principal & Heads of
Departments)
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
(v) Between the LRC members and the School Board
______________________________________________________________________________

5. (b) Suggest how the following relationships can be improved:

(i) Among the RLC members

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

(ii) Between the LRC members and fellow learners

___________________________________________________________________________

146
(iii)Between the LRC members and the teachers
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
(iv) Between the School Management Team (principal & Heads of Departments)
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
(v) Between the LRC members and the School Board members?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
6. Does the school support and develop you as leaders? Please explain your answer.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
7. (a) What are some of the challenges that you are facing as LRC members in carrying out
your roles and responsibilities in the school?
(b) What would be your suggestions to overcome the challenges you have mentioned above?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
8. Is there anything else that you would like to share with regards to the LRC leadership
development in the school? if so, do so discuss.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
The end.

147
Appendix I: Interview schedule
For the LRC members, former LRC teacher, principal, HoDs, School Board Chairperson

1. How do you understand the notion of learner leadership in the school?

2. In your own view, do you think the leadership of the LRC is needed in the school?
Why do you say so?
3. What leadership roles do the current LRC members play in the school? How do the
current LRC roles different from the roles of the previous LRC members?
4. (i) Describe the relationship between the LRC and the following:
1. LRC-LRC 2. fellow learners 3. teachers 4. school management (principal and
HoDs) and 5. School Board
• Follow-up
• (ii) In what ways do these relationships work?
• (iii) How can these relationships be improved?
5. Does the school support and promote the leadership development of the LRC? If so,
in what ways? If no, why not?
6. Are there any initiatives and/or visible changes that the LRC members have proposed
or implemented in the school? follow-up: If yes, tell me about them. Tell me in what
ways they were successful and what challenges were faced. If none, why do you think
this is the case?
7. What are some of the challenges facing the LRC members to carry out their
leadership roles in the school?
8. What would be your suggestions to overcome the challenges you have mentioned?
9. Is there anything that you would like to share with regards to the LRC leadership
development in the school?

148